Www.christadelphian-ejbi.org



Christadelphian EJournalOf Biblical InterpretationVol. 10, No. 2, Apr 2016Editors: T. Gaston, A. Perry, P. Wyns. ContentsEditorialAdam, Israel and the MessiahPsalm 22Colossians 1:15-20Columnists: `Analysis: Matt 13:44-52 (Concluded)History: Dividing up the Middle EastGender Discussion: Role of WomenArchaeology NewsMarginal Notes: Eph 2:16; Matt 27:46News: End of Phoenix Press, etc.Review: James Edwards, The Hebrew GospelPostscriptSupplement: Who is Immanuel?Editors:andrew.perry@christadelphian-paul.wyns@christadelphian-t.gaston@christadelphian- (Philosophy and Apologetics)Columnists: andrew.wilson@christadelphian- (History)bhmkent@christadelphian- (Exegesis/Analysis)Vacancy (Gender)Archaeologykaymcgrath@christadelphian-News: Consulting Review Panel: David Levin (Hebrew)Cover Design: D. BurkeEditorialOur guest columnist on Gender Issues stepped down in January after one excellent column, which is a great loss; usually Gender columnists last a year before resigning. Still, we will endeavour to find another one, but it’s not easy. AP----One of the crooked foundations that lies at the base of many misleading and unhelpful “Christian” ideas is a faulty assumption about what the Bible is and what it is for. Some of the more extreme results stemming from such a foundation are illustrated by Christian Smith in his book The Bible Made Impossible, where he lists the titles of a number of modern books produced for the popular evangelical markets (pp. 8-10). His list includes: Cooking with the Bible, The Bible Cure for Cancer, Biblical Economics and Weather and the Bible. The problem is not that there is no interest in recreating meals from bible times (say); the problem is that it is pretty self-evident that the Bible is not a recipe book. The problem is not that there aren’t biblical principles for the use of money; the problem is that the Bible does not contain any economic system. An uglier manifestation of this problem is the use of the Bible in the hands of anti-theists. For example, Sam Harris has criticised the Bible for saying nothing about electricity or DNA. Yet such criticisms are like castigating a bike for being unable to fly or a phone for being unable to fry an egg. At no point does the Bible purport to contain information about the technological and scientific advances of the modern era. Why would it? Such things have nothing to do with God’s purpose with the Bible. Christadelphians, like Christians of many stripes, are fond of quoting 2 Tim 3:16 but can sometimes emphasize the first part of the verse so hard (“all scripture is God-breathed”) that the remainder gets lost in the ether (“and is useful for ...”). Yet Paul’s words are not primarily detailing a doctrine of scripture (though that’s often how his words have been used). Instead, Paul is exhorting Timothy to continue in what he has learned (v. 14) because it is through its message that he has found salvation through faith in Jesus (v. 15). For Paul, the utility of the Scriptures is to equip God’s servants for every good work (v. 16). Note that. Paul does not say “All scripture is God-breathed and contains detailed scientific and technological information”. Or, “... and provides a detailed economic and social theory”. Or even, “... and provides an exhaustive set of FAQs for any and every situation in life”. No, for Paul, the Scriptures are useful for equipping Christians for good works. This is not to say that the Bible does not make truth claims that may be open to historical or scientific scrutiny (it does). Yet, if we are looking to the Bible to satisfy our curiosity or to shortcut experimental research, then we are going to be disappointed, because the it claims to do no such thing. And this is not to say that the Bible does not contain principles that inform a Christian worldview, which may have implications for society, for economics and for many other areas of life. But if we treat the Bible as a troubleshooting guide for when our lives get a bit messy, then, again, we are going to be disappointed. I think one of the reasons behind this faulty assumption about the Bible is the general tendency to think that the Bible must be perfect and that such perfection must mean really-great-at-absolutely-everything. And you can either try to perpetuate that faulty assumption by shoehorning our own answers into the biblical text, or you can acknowledge the Bible to be what it claims to be .The EJournal exists to provide a forum for academic level exploration of biblical topics. For some, the intertextual approach provides confirmation of the divine origins of scripture. For some, the articles provide background for their own personal bible study, perhaps in preparation for public speaking. Yet in whatever context we approach the Bible, whether for study or devotion, knowing what the Bible is (and what it is not) is fundamental to its utility. TG-----Think of a country and think of a town or city like Manchester and imagine that Manchester is a topic of dispute, a disputed interpretation of a text or evidence, a disagreement over analysis. Then consider that the resolution of the dispute actually consists in understanding another part of the country, the city of Leeds. Because disputants don’t look at Leeds, they are forever trapped in a stalemate that is Manchester. Maybe you see that the resolution lies in Leeds but getting your opponent to travel to Leeds is met with resistance because they believe Manchester as they see it is a nice place. APArticlesAdam, Israel and the MessiahA. PerryIntroductionN. T. Wright introduces a thesis in his The Climax of the Covenant that, “what he [Paul] says about Jesus and about the Law reflects his belief that the covenant purposes of Israel’s God had reached their climatic moment in the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection.” If he means the Law, this looks right, since Christ came to fulfil the Law. He cannot mean the Abrahamic or Davidic promises. There have been two thousand years since Christ and these promises do not look fulfilled. Rather than a climax in respect of these promises, the death and resurrection of Christ look like a watershed.Wright expands upon his thesis by saying that Paul is engaged upon the “redefinition” of the Jewish doctrines of God and Israel (monotheism and election) by means of Christology and Pneumatology. This is a significant thesis and, on initial thoughts, it looks plausible for the doctrine of election if Wright means Second Temple Judaism, but wrong if he means just the Jewish Scriptures of Paul’s day; it seems wrong for both Second Temple Judaism and the Jewish Scriptures in respect of monotheism. We might well ask: what would need redefinition in the Jewish Scriptures if they are inspired? Of course, Wright needs to redefine monotheism and election because he has Christ and later church doctrine to ‘fit’ into a Jewish framework. Hence, Wright talks of a ‘christological redefinition’ of Jewish monotheism and sees 1 Cor 8:6 as a key text redefining the Shema. The inclusion of Christ in this new Shema, Wright claims, sets a boundary and marks out Christians from Jews, making race “irrelevant to membership in the people of God”. Nevertheless, Wright doesn’t affirm the replacement of Israel by the church nor the separate coexistence of Israel and the church in the purpose of God. His view is a third way. Still, we might well ask whether race was ever an excluding principle for membership of the people of God, given the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt, and this is the overriding point.TypologyScholars are wont to consider Adam-Christology, Wisdom-Christology, Gnostic Redeemer Myths, Roman Imperial Christology, and the like, in Paul, and see differences, even conflicts, and all in their endeavour to understand Christ. They also give as much space to relating Paul to his Jewish-Hellenistic background as to his intertextual exegesis and development of the Jewish Scriptures. Our interest is in the latter because Paul is writing Scripture with Scripture as a Christian prophet; any connections with his Jewish background or with Greco-Roman culture in general is secondary and for another paper.Wright’s thesis about Israel is that she is ‘God’s true humanity’ and his argument is typological: the Abrahamic promises are configured in Adamic terms: be fruitful and multiply, have dominion, and possess the land. They are so configured, but he doesn’t indicate what he means by ‘true’ and doesn’t compare Heb 9:24, for example, with its typological notion of ‘true’ to indicate the antitype (‘figures of the true’). Certainly, Israel can be thought of as an Adamic type, but scripturally, they are not the ‘true’; in relation to Adam, the ‘true’ is Christ. The same point applies if we consider an individual as an Adamic type, such as the Arm of the Lord in Isa 45:12, or if we consider a remnant (‘saints’, Daniel 7), or a king and his people (Isaiah 55, ‘thorn’, ‘brier’). Wright will want to say that Christ and his people are ‘the true’, but his notion of ‘true humanity’ in respect of Israel is misleading, especially if you are working with typology where ‘type’ and ‘antitype’ are well understood categories.Whether typology is seen in a text is obviously dependent on the reader; readers are different, some will be right and some will be wrong with the typology they discern. So, for example, Wright thinks that there is an Adamic typology in Prov 8:22-31 with Wisdom being “set over the created order”. This seems wrong on several levels: there are no Adamic textual links; Wisdom is female and she is ‘with’ God; and she is then ‘with’ the ‘sons of Adam’. This isn’t actually a ‘setting’ of Wisdom ‘over’ the created order.Mistakes can also be made in analysis with the antitype. Wright characterizes Paul’s understanding as, “the role traditionally assigned to Israel had devolved on to Jesus Christ. Paul now regarded him, not Israel, as God’s true humanity”. The issue that this ‘summary’ raises is the ongoing role of Israel in the purpose of God and the relationship of Jesus to Israel. That Israel has an ongoing role is proven by their return to the land in modern times (correspondingly, there is no such proof that ‘the church’ has an ongoing role). The point here is that when Paul compares Adam and Christ, Christ is presented as the antitype and not the replacement of Israel as an Adamic type. If Jesus is part of Israel, then there is no possibility of roles being devolved; the role Jesus plays will be the role Israel plays by dint of the fact he is part of Israel.The subtle error in Wright is seen again when he says in relation to Rom 5:12-21 that “the privileges of Israel, particularly those of the fulfilment of the law and of being the children of God, have been transferred to Christ and thence to those who are ‘in Christ.’” On the contrary, the promises were always centred in Christ; they haven’t been transferred to him as if they were centred in Israel; Jesus is part of Israel. Those who are unfaithful in Israel have the same position in every generation – they are of the flesh and not of the Spirit. The fact that the faithful in Israel recognized Jesus and followed him does not effect a transfer of anything; scholars are misled by the equal inclusion of the Gentiles “in Christ” into thinking there is a new body of people apart from Israel.The key point here is to recognise that ‘Christ’ was preached in the past to the fathers and through the prophets. Faith in Christ might not have had the detail and the name, but it was possible from the beginning. It is therefore a strategic mistake to think that “The work of Christ does not merely inaugurate a new race of humanity, as though by starting again from scratch.” There is no ‘merely’ here: Christ has been the foundation for the faithful since the beginning. Hence, Israel were not entrusted with the redemption of humanity, as if this task did not involve reference to Christ. The Law was a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ (Gal 3:24), and so it was never the case that the Law was a different principle of redemption given to Israel, a principle which has now been replaced.Resurrection How we think of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus is important for our understanding of the relationship of Jesus to Israel. Furthermore, it is important for discerning and applying types that we understand the historical background underlying the scriptural material from which we are drawing the type. For example, Psalm 110 has its historical background during the rebellion of Adonijah; Solomon is anointed by the brook (v. 7), but there are enemies inside the royal court, the army, and the people, and so Solomon is told by Yahweh to ‘sit by his right hand’ until he makes his enemies his footstool. The typology here is that there will be a period between Jesus’ anointment as king and his taking the throne in Jerusalem, but it is clear that the subjugation of Solomon’s enemies continues after he has gained the throne (Ps 110:5-6). Since Jesus has not taken the Davidic throne in Jerusalem, he sits at ‘the right hand of God’ now, which is a metaphor in the Psalm for the divinely supported rule of the king away from the throne.There are several quotations of (and allusions to) Psalm 110 by NT writers. The quotation of Ps 110 in Heb 2:5-11 (“putting everything in subjection under his feet”) states that not all things are yet in subjection to him. There is a time in the future when all things will be in subjection to Christ. This future time is the subject of the quotation in 1 Cor 15:25,For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 1 Cor 15:25 (RSV)This picks up on ‘until’, ‘put/make’ (tyv) and ‘enemies’ from Ps 110:1, but there has been a coming prior to this subjugation (v. 23); this is therefore an application of the Psalm after the Second Advent. The phrase ‘under his feet’ is coming from Ps 8:6, although it is probable that ‘footstool’ is a figurative imagining of the earlier Psalm’s ‘under his feet’. Psalm 8 is highly Adamic and this shows that there is a parallel to be struck between the dominion of Adam and the dominion of the Davidic king.Psalm 110 begins at the brook where Solomon is anointed, but from v. 2 onwards it is a picture of the rule of the king from Jerusalem. For the Psalm to apply to Jesus, he has to rule from Jerusalem, and ‘the day of thy power’ (v. 3) and ‘the day of his wrath’ (v. 5) resonate with normal expressions for future action like ‘in that day’. Obviously, if Christ be not raised, none of this typological application of Psalms 8 and 110 can apply. Resurrection can be a metaphor (as in Ezekiel 37) but the resurrection of Christ and those ‘in Christ’ (1 Cor 15:22-23) is or will be literal. Wright avers that “Israel’s longed-for ‘resurrection’ had bifurcated, and was now to be seen as a two-stage process in which Jesus would rise first, solo, while his people were to follow later”. This confuses the metaphorical use of ‘resurrection’ in Ezekiel 37 with the literal resurrection of the dead. Israel’s national resurrection will take place as they respond to Jesus after his return, but this is a metaphor. The general resurrection of the dead is apart from the revival of Israel, and it is this resurrection of which Jesus is the firstborn. Jesus is Israel’s messiah-deliverer, the one who will restore the kingdom of God as it was under David, but the kingdom will conclude in a clear subordination of ‘the Son’ to God: “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28). What is interesting here is that the nomenclature ‘the Father’ is not used and that it is the first use of ‘son’ for Christ since 1 Cor 1:9. Paul has been using the title ‘Christ’ up until this point and so there is a significance to this change. The question is – to what scripture is Paul alluding? Psalm 2:7, “You are my beloved son”? Or Isaiah 9:6, “Unto us a son is given”? The context would suggest Ps 2:7 because it is used of the resurrection (Acts 13:33) and the priesthood (Heb 5:5-6; cf. Ps 110:4). Jesus is a priest-king and will reign from Jerusalem like Melchizedek, but he will deliver up this kingdom to the Father and be subject unto him.Adam ChristologyAnd so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living soul’; the last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is from heaven. 1 Cor 15:45-47 (KJV revised)This passage raises the question: why is Christ called the ‘last’ Adam? He is called the ‘second’ man but not ‘the second Adam’. Genesis 2:7 is about ‘the man’ becoming a living soul, but Paul adds the name ‘Adam’. This picks up on the use of the name in v. 22, but there doesn’t seem to be any significance in the addition of the name in v. 45, except to enable the assignment of the title ‘the last Adam’ to Christ. Why?The obvious suggestion is that Christ is the Adam of / for ‘the last things’; this proposal differs from Jesus’ avowal that he is ‘the first and the last’ (Rev 1:17, etc.) which picks up on the diplomatic titles in use in Hezekiah’s day (Isa 44:6; 48:12). Since eternal life is given to those in Christ at the last judgment (v. 22), ‘the Adam of the last things [became] a life-giving spirit’ looks like typical Pauline phrasing. Jesus became a life-giving spirit in this sense with his exaltation, but he will be the Adam of the last things with the general resurrection and judgment, i.e. when the last things come about. The return of the Edenic state of affairs at the end is clear from Revelation 21-22. So it is that ‘first’ and ‘last’ are contrasted and Paul is careful to say that Christ is the ‘Adam’ of the last things and not the ‘man’ because as such he is a life-giving spirit whereas Adam was only a living soul. Certainly, ‘life-giving spirit’ expands “in Christ shall all be made alive” (v. 22), but ‘spirit’ in v. 45 is in apposition to ‘man’ and not ‘soul’.When did Christ become or, alternatively, when will he be the ‘last’ Adam? Wright disagrees with J. D. G. Dunn on this question, arguing that Christ was the ‘last Adam’ during his life on earth, citing John 5:21-24, whereas Dunn argues that Jesus became the ‘last’ Adam when he became a life-giving spirit after his resurrection and exaltation: “he became the ‘source’ of the Holy Spirit to all who believe”. Our third counter-proposal is that Christ will be the ‘last’ Adam when he raises the dead, judges the dead and gives life to those who will inherit the kingdom. Whether (with Dunn) Christ became the source of the holy Spirit after his resurrection and whether he gives a quality of life to believers in their mortal lives is not the topic in 1 Corinthians 15 – this is about resurrection and life: “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”. The concept of life that Paul has in mind is not ethical; it is about existing – being alive. Furthermore, while it is true that Christ’s life on earth was ‘Adamic’ in its contrasting obedience (with Wright), this does not explain the use of ‘last’ in ‘the Last Adam’. Christ will be the Adam of the last things when the last things are in play.DispensationsDispensational models of history are usually linear and two dimensional: ages succeed ages in a straight line. If we change this approach to a three-dimensional one, what we have, to begin with, is a pair of cones. The largest cone is creation with Adam at the beginning; the counterpoint is Christ and the new creation. Christ was of Adam but not in Adam, and so the cone that begins with Christ, and is the new creation, it emerges from within the old creation. It is like a cone held in suspension inside the larger cone of creation. The point at which the new creation begins is the promise in Eden that a seed of the woman would deal a fatal blow to the seed of the serpent. The fact that Christ (this seed) did not come for thousands of years does not mean that the possibility of faith in Christ did not begin with this promise nor that a new creation on the basis of this faith was not possible. The visual advantage of the cone model is that the cone widens out from the federal head to include many people and many events.This model is straightforward enough but what about Abraham and Israel? There is a correspondence between Adam and Abraham, there is a beginning and promises centred on a seed (Gal 3:16). Christ was of Abraham but he did not just claim to have Abraham as his father, which means that we can apply the same model of the two cones. Faith in Christ has a new beginning with the Abrahamic promises and there have been those in Israel who followed that faith and those who have been unfaithful. However, although the faithful were primarily of Abraham, proselytes from outside Israel were always around. The important point here is that acceptable faith is further defined in relation to a new specification of the seed of the woman. It becomes about a more specific seed and a more specific land. Since Abraham is the father of both natural Israel and of the faithful, the cones that begin with him are evidently set in suspension inside the cone that begins with the promise of the seed of the woman. The seed promised to Abraham is the seed of the woman, but the faithful now focus on the promises to Abraham. The difference with the giving of the Law, or even with Moses and the ‘birth’ of the nation of Israel from Egypt, is that these happenings do not yield a federal head. The father of the nation of Israel is not Moses, nor is their exodus from Egypt the origin of the nation; it is Abraham. The Law was added into the Abrahamic dispensation because of transgressions (Gal 3:19). The same point also applies to David and his seed even though Jesus is the seed of Abraham and of David (Matt 1:1). David is not the federal head of a people, but individuals can become heirs of the Abrahamic promises through baptism into Christ (Gal 3:27-29). Rather, the Davidic kingdom is a more refined specification of the dominion of the Last Adam, a dominion now specified in terms of kingship. AdamAbrahamChrist/SeedHow you define an ‘age’ or a ‘dispensation’ is a matter of analysis. We have used a three-dimensional model centred on ‘headship’ (although the diagram is a plane figure) – our question has been, who is the father of a people? Hence, we have found three cones - an outer Adamic cone in which all are born (the old creation); an inner cone originating with the promise of the seed of the woman (the new creation) – those who have faith in this seed are born again. A further cone inside the Adamic cone stemming from Abraham and embracing the innermost cone that has its point of origin in the promise of a seed (singular, Christ) of the Woman and (now) Abraham (Rom 9:7). The gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8), and so whether the gospel is a dispensational beginning is the next question. The end of the Law is a matter of a change in sacrifices for those under the Law to the single sacrifice of Christ (Rom 10:4). This happens for Israel and within the Abrahamic dispensation. The fact that Gentiles are more explicitly included through preaching is foretold by the Prophets and particularly Isaiah in the terms of Hezekiah’s restoration after 701 BCE. But the apostolic outreach doesn’t signal a change in God’s election of Israel, because it has always been possible for Gentiles to be included among those who have the faith of Abraham. The ministry of the gospel is part of Israel’s history. Commentators talk about the ‘age of the church’ and Christians focus on the church. They see a dispensational beginning in the proclamation of the gospel. They see the last two thousand years as the history of the church in all its vicissitudes. But it is possible that the facts of church history are conditioning how scholars read the New Testament. For example, they see the fact of the parting of the ways between the Gentile church and the Jews and read the New Testament to allow for this eventuality. However, contrawise, if the ministry of the gospel is part of Israel’s history, if the end of the Mosaic sacrifices is a matter for Israel, and if the outreach to the Gentiles is to share the faith of Israel, and no different in principle than Hezekiah’s outreach in the early 7c., then the parting of the ways would only go to show that the increasingly Gentile church became an apostasy from apostolic Christianity. The expressions ‘New Israel’ and ‘new people’ do not occur in the NT; conceptually, to show that there is a ‘New Israel’ requires a different argument to that which shows that there has been or that there is to be a renewal of Israel. The concept of the ‘new covenant’ is one that is embedded in Israel’s history (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8, 13) and its Christian character maintains the church inside Israel. The concept of a ‘new creature/creation/man’ is Adamic (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10, etc.) and we have shown that it has been around since the proto-evangelium (Gen 3:15). We cannot argue from the fact of a new creation in Christ to there being a New Israel, or a new people of God, not on the dispensational model we have sketched. Hence, for instance, when Jesus appoints the twelve, this is to judge the tribes of Israel and not to be the heads of a New Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). The messiah is organizing Israel, not creating a new Israel; we might instead say that he is renewing Israel.Peter addresses the Diaspora (1 Pet 1:1; cf. James 1:1) with the words,But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. 1 Pet 2:9 (RSV)This quotes Exod 19:6, addressing Israel. It is not the recognition of a new Israel, in the body of the church, but rather a reinforcement and an encouragement that the Jewish Christians in the Diaspora carried the great commission of their people on their shoulders.This argument (and the choice we are presenting) goes to the heart of a common view in scholarship, namely, that the church (as a self-contained body) was the ‘last days’ restoration of Israel. Our counter-argument is that the apostolic church was part of a restoration of Israel, but with the destruction of the Jewish state and the deportation of many Jews on the horizon in AD70, as prophesied by Jesus, the full restoration of Israel was never in prospect before the Second Advent and the restitution of all things (hence, Acts 3:19-22 and Simeon’s prophecy about the rise and fall of many in Israel, Luke 2:34).The Restoration of IsraelThe ‘restoration of Israel’ has been the subject of a lot of scholarly commentary. It is expressed as the view that Jews thought of themselves in ‘exile’ in their land and that their self-determination would be restored by their messiah. It is developed using Isaiah’s restoration prophecies and often called a ‘new exodus restoration’. So, for example, M. M. B. Turner argues that Jesus’ mission in Luke and Acts through the Spirit is one of restoration. This ‘exile and restoration’ theology might be true of some Second Temple authors, but this is not how the NT writers viewed their situation or their message.In general terms, there are several things that look like solid objections to this interpretation. First, the Jews are in the land and under occupation; this is not a metaphorical ‘exile’; people down the ages have sought liberation from occupation just as much as from exile. Secondly, John the Baptist and Jesus prophesied the end of the Jewish state (Luke 3:7; 21:23), so it is unlikely that they are engaged upon the full restoration of Israel. Thirdly, the Isaianic prophecies that the NT writers use were initially for those needing liberation after 701; liberation is the typology of Jesus’ ministry not restoration. Lastly, the ‘exodus’ and ‘new exodus’ typologies are about ‘release’, ‘departure’ and ‘journey’; they are not stories of restoration. The restoration of Judah under Hezekiah after 701 is set against the background that the wrath of God was deferred (Isa 39:6; 48:9) – the destruction of Jerusalem was in the future (in 587). This is why Isaiah’s prophecies of liberation and renewal are the template for the apostles’ ministry which was carried out in the shadow of another destruction, namely, AD70. Hence, the restoration of Israel is explicitly thrown forward to the return of Jesus (Acts 3:19-22).What do we mean by ‘restoration’? Any number of ideas could be put forward: (1) the self-determination of the nation; (2) the establishment of the Davidic monarchy; (3) renewal of infrastructure, cities, roads, and trade; (4) the rebuilding of the temple; (5) the bringing home of people held in captivity and/or deported to foreign places; and (6) the revitalization of society and culture. In Isaiah’s day, post-701, the monarchy was in place and the apparatus of state had self-determination; but there was a need to rebuild the country’s cities and infrastructure; to bring home those who had been deported by the Assyrians; there was a need to rebuild and repair the temple and revitalize society and culture. Isaiah’s record reflects all these aspects of restoration, but they are not all relevant to apostolic times as the pattern for the ministry of the gospel. New Testament scholars have proposed that the church is the restoration of (the people of) Israel, but there is no one-to-one identity because of the continued existence of natural Israel in the purpose of God. The preaching of the gospel and belief in Christ brings about ‘liberation and salvation’ of individuals who are then renewed by the Spirit, but they are part of the deliverance of Israel. The liberation and salvation of a people is the prerequisite for the work of restoration – this was true in Hezekiah’s day and true for when the kingdom will be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6).IsaiahIn general terms, what is the usage of Isaiah in the New Testament? Jews in the Second Temple period sought the fulfilment of Isaiah in their own day. They were under occupation, and so liberation and salvation oracles were used to express their hopes. There are prophecies about an individual who would liberate them and there are prophecies about the liberation. In addition, Jews had ambition for their nation and sought its restoration and a position of power over the nations. Jesus stated that his kingdom was not of this world and that his servants would not fight, and this means that the political aspects of the restoration of Israel were not part of his mission, both before and through the apostles. The Isaianic prophecies that are applied to his mission, and then the apostolic mission, are those about liberation and salvation. As an example, we can look at the use of Isa 40:3-5 in Luke to describe the Baptist’s ministry.The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.’ Isa 40:3-5 (KJV)As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’” Luke 3:4-6 (KJV)The difference in Luke’s quotation with Isaiah is that he interprets the ‘glory of the Lord’ to be ‘salvation of God’, which draws upon Isaiah 35. The context of Isaiah 40 is the aftermath of 701 and the need to liberate those held in captivity in Assyrian garrisons and by the local nations who had been part of the Assyrian confederacy. The original context is political and military but this is applied spiritually by John the Baptist to the Jews of his day. There are seven correspondences in the typology that matches Isaiah’s day with the first century:The voice crying in the wilderness is that of a (1) messenger and one sent (2) before the Lord (v. 3; Mal 3:1)The Lord is coming from (3) the north in the person of the Arm of the Lord (Isa 41:25).The ‘wilderness’ is the (4) cities of Judah (vv. 10-11; Isa 51:3; 64:9).If the people (5) repent, the glory of the Lord will be revealed.The glory of the Lord is (6) salvation and liberation (Isa 35:2, 4).All flesh (nations) would ‘see’ it ‘together’ and this would be the (7) creation of a garden of ‘trees’ in the wilderness (Isa 41:19-20, 23).The application corresponds literally except for the salvation and liberation which is spiritual, which in turn makes the Roman occupation a metaphor for the people’s bondage to sin. The Baptist’s message from Isaiah is not about the restoration of Israel in any political sense, but it is about the salvation and liberation of people. The condition is their repentance which is demanded by the exhortation to prepare the way of the Lord.The focus on people (rather than the apparatus of the state) is shown by the allusion to Isa 40:3, “to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17; cf. Acts 13:24), and the spiritual sense of ‘the Way’ is shown in the allusion, “for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways” (Luke 1:76). The use of Isa 40:3-5 addresses the people in situ – they are to repent and wait for the Lord. Luke also details the work of the deliverer from Isaiah. He records Simeon’s prophecy as a kind of prologue to his gospel. Simeon was waiting for ‘the consolation (para,klhsij) of Israel’ (Luke 2:25), and this ‘comfort’ for which he waited was the ‘salvation’ (Luke 2:30) of the people. He saw this in the infant Jesus. The allusion is to Isa 49:6, 13 and the Servant of the Lord, who was also to be a light to lighten the Gentiles (Luke 2:31), in order that he might take salvation to the end of the earth. And he said, ‘It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to return (bwv) the survivors (rcn) of Israel; I will also give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the land.’ Isa 49:6 (my trans.)The original context of the oracle is the return of the deportees and captives, which would build up the tribes of Israel again. This political reality is not what Luke picks out in his record – he picks out salvation and the taking of light to the nations. The seventh century return of Judahites from deportation and captivity is a type of the ‘turning’ of the people to the Lord in response to the gospel. The involvement of the nations (‘a light to the Gentiles’) was to bring about the salvation of Israel in the seventh century. In the first century, the gospel is taken to the Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy (Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14) – it has the same purpose – to save Israel. Commentators have sought to apply Isaiah eschatologically, but in the first instance, the prophecies have an immediate application to the political realities on the ground post-701 and then to the reality of the mission of John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles. Hence, Pao is wrong when he characterizes Isaiah 40-55 by saying, “The dawn of the era of salvation and the deliverance of the people of God and Jerusalem/Zion forms the principle underlying Isaiah 40-55.” Even on a post-exilic reading, this is wrong. There was no ‘era’ of salvation begun in the sixth or seventh centuries. Moreover, in the first century, we have the last days of Judah’s Commonwealth being played out; instead, the beginning of any new era is linked to the return of Christ (Acts 3:18-22).Liberation of captives and deportees and their salvation is one type from Isaiah 40-66, but salvation is also salvation from the ‘wrath to come’ (Matt 3:7; Luke 3:7; 1 Thess 1:10; 2:16). This prospect also has a typological basis in Isaiah, except there God’s wrath is deferred (Isa 39:8; 48:9) until what turned out to be the Babylonian Captivity.Applying Isaiah in Second Temple JudaismThere are several ways in which Isa 40:3-5 is applied in the Second Temple literature,(1) Applying Isa 40:3-5 to the return of exiles from Babylon is made in Baruch 5:5-7 (c. 2c. BCE),Arise, O Jerusalem, and stand on high, and look about toward the east, and behold thy children gathered from the west unto the east by the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the remembrance of God. For they departed from thee on foot, and were led away of their enemies: but God bringeth them unto thee exalted with glory, as children of the kingdom. For God hath appointed that every high hill, and banks of long continuance, should be cast down, and valleys filled up, to make even the ground, that Israel may go safely in the glory of God… Baruch 5:5-7The Isaiah language is regarded as a metaphor for God facilitating the journey home – a metaphor describing God’s suppression of hostile nations on the route home. (2) Similarly, in the Psalms of Solomon 11:2-6 (1c. BCE),Stand on the height, O Jerusalem, and behold your children. From the east and the west, gathered together by the Lord. From the north they come in the gladness of their God. From the isles afar off God has gathered them. High mountains he has abased into a plain for them. The hills fled at their entrance. The woods gave them shelter as they passed by. Every sweet-smelling tree God caused to spring up for them, in order that Israel might pass by in the visitation of the glory of their God. Pss 11:2-6However, the application here is to a general return from all points of the compass of the Diaspora.(3) A different kind of application is in a description of the establishment of the kingdom in the Assumption of Moses (2c. BCE),And the earth shall tremble: to its confines shall it be shaken: And the high mountains shall be made low and the hills shall be shaken and fall. Assumption of Moses 10:4Isaiah’s figures are being used to predict the subjugation of the nations in the face of God’s kingdom. The same kind of use is found in 1 Enoch 1:6, “And the high mountains shall be shaken, And the high hills shall be made low, and shall melt like wax before the flame.”(4) Another kind of use of Isaiah is that in the Qumran sectarian document 1QS. And when these become members of the community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of unjust men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of him; as it is written, ‘Prepare in the wilderness the way of…, make straight in the desert a path for our God’ (Isa. Xl, 3). This path is the study of the Law which he commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as the prophets have revealed by his holy Spirit. 1QS 8:13-16; cf. 9:16-21This interprets ‘the Way’ in Isaiah in ethical terms and supports the ascetic lifestyle of the Qumran community. The political overtones of the ‘hills’ and ‘mountains’ in other texts is not picked up, nor any journeying from foreign lands. In fact, disciples go away from the land into the wilderness.Taking the above applications, (1) - (4), and comparing them with Luke, it would seem that the Baptist’s use of Isaiah is not too dissimilar to that of the Qumran community. Scholars have often made a comparison with John the Baptist and Qumran. His ethical imperative is tied to the coming of a liberating lord (in keeping with Mal 3:1), rather than the establishment of a new age (the kingdom). The ethical dimension is shown in Acts 13:10, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?” The application of Isaiah to the return of exiled Jews or to the coming home of the Diaspora is not part of the Baptist’s declaration.The ExodusThe ‘exodus’ could be narrowly defined to include just the deliverance of Israel from Egypt up to and including the crossing of the Red Sea; it could be more broadly defined to include the two-year journey to the land or the whole of the wilderness wandering period; and it could include the crossing of Jordan and arrival in the land. Turner includes all these elements as they have been reconfigured in Isaiah 40-55, and he also adds the element that the ‘new exodus’ embraces the goal of a “restored Zion/Jerusalem”. Pao has a similar comprehensive understanding of the motif of the ‘new exodus’. Concluding a discussion of Isa 40:1-11, and noting the military language of vv. 10-11, he states that “This language evokes the Exodus paradigm in which God delivers and restores his people”. The question can be asked, however, as to whether ‘restoration’ is an exodus paradigm. Certainly deliverance and journey is involved, but Israel was not the ‘people of the land’ before the exodus; a small family went down into Egypt and a nation came out of Egypt. The nation, as such, was not restored to the land in the traditions of Genesis-Exodus; it is better therefore to describe Isaianic typology in terms just of a “new exodus deliverance” (e.g. Isa 48:20-21; 51:9-10). What we need to do, however, is distinguish the use of Isa 40:3-5 to describe the Baptist’s ministry from the typology of a new exodus deliverance. Mark combines Isa 40:3 with Mal 3:1 which in turn echoes Exod 23:20,As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’...” Mark 1:2-4 (RSV)Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. Mal 3:1 (RSV)Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared. Exod 23:20 (RSV); cf. Exod 13:21-22The typology in these texts is different. The difference between Exod 23:20 and Isa 40:3-5/Mal 3:1 is one of leading as opposed to coming. Further, Israel are led along a way in the exodus; in Isa 40:3/Mal 3:1, the exhortation to the people is to prepare a way. The messenger and the people prepare a way for the lord. The way across the wilderness coming to a people is a different way to that which the lord takes leading a people to a prepared place. A way for coming to the people does not feature in the exodus and we cannot therefore describe the way of Isa 40:3 as a ‘new exodus’ way. God does not need an exodus; people need an exodus! This does not mean that Isaiah does not allude to the leading of Exod 23:20 in other ‘way’ texts. (1) So, for example, Isa 52:12, “For you shall not go out in haste, and you shall not go in flight, for the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard” is an obvious allusion. This text refers to the Levites re-acquiring the vessels of the Lord on the borders of Egypt. The exodus allusion is not ‘travel’ based (crossing a desert; a way in the wilderness; crossing water); it is not describing a journey. The allusion is about leaving (‘go out’) and protection on a journey about to start (‘before/after’). This is not the ‘way’ of Exod 23:20.(2) Another exodus way allusion refers to the crossing of the Red Sea, “Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters…I am about to do a new thing…I will make a way in the wilderness” (Isa 43:16-19). The phrasing here (lit: ‘the one making’ – a participle) indicates that the way and the path are being made in Isaiah’s day; the allusion is to the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land, but the claim is that this was being re-enacted in a figurative sea (cf. Isa 44:27). The description of the waters as ‘mighty’ uses the same adjective that was used to describe the east wind that separated the waters of the Red Sea (Exod 14:21). The sea and the waters are the ‘nations and peoples’ through whose territory Judahites had to cross as they fled from Babylon. In particular, the ‘mighty waters’ are those of ‘the river’ that was Assyria (Isa 8:7; 28:2, 17), while the sea is more generally the nations (Isa 17:12-13; 57:20). Again, this allusion is not the ‘way’ of Exod 23:20; it is the ‘way’ across the Red Sea.(3) A clear exodus motif is used in Isa 51:10, where we shift from the creatures of v. 9 to ‘the sea’:Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over? Isa 51:10 (KJV)The ‘great deep’ is an equivalent metaphor for ‘the sea’ that is the area of the Ancient Near East, and it is an allusion to Noah’s Flood, continuing the motif of the Assyrian Confederacy overflowing Judah (Gen 7:11, ‘great deep’; Isa 8:7). The allusion to the ‘drying up’ of the Red Sea is from Ps 106:9; the verb is not used in the exodus account. The ‘Arm of the Lord’ dried the sea and Moses’ action in raising his arm over the Red Sea (Exod 14:16; cf. Deut 4:34) is a natural typological basis for that term of reference (cf. Deut 4:34, “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm”). The ‘drying up’ of the sea is a common figure for what God does to nations (Isa 37:18, 25 ‘waste’; 44:27; 49:17 ‘waste’; 50:2; 60:12 ‘waste’). This ‘drying up’ of the sea was prophesied in Amos 7:4 with a different image: a fire ‘devoured the great deep’. The drying up of the sea symbolizes what God does to the nations round about Judah and in Mesopotamia. So, the withdrawal of Assyria from the west (its western army destroyed), and the Babylonian rebellion in the east, requiring Sennacherib’s attention, is the ‘drying up’ of the sea, and this afforded the opportunity for captive Judahites from all points of the compass to return to the land; the destruction of the Assyrian army and the consequent chaos and disarray in the west afforded Judahites various routes home. The next figure, ‘depths of the sea’, refers to the sea-bed and even the mire of the sea-bed (Ps 69:3, 15). A way had been made by dint of the fact that the sea had been dried. This is a way for the ‘redeemed’ or ‘ransomed’ to pass over; the plural occurs elsewhere only in Isa 35:9. This is not the ‘spiritual’ concept of ‘the Way’ that we find in Isaiah, but the making of a way (many ways) back to Judah. Exactly where the redeemed come from is not stated. Also, this is not the ‘way’ of Isaiah 40 which is about the Lord coming to the cities of Judah.It is because God has made a way by removing Assyria (and engaging Sennacherib in Babylon) that ‘the redeemed shall return’ from Babylon (and elsewhere):Therefore, the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away. Isa 51:11 (KJV)This quotes or reiterates Isa 35:10 which follows on from, or is coincident with, the ‘year of recompence’ (Isa 34:8). This ‘year’ involves action against Edom (Bozrah, Isa 34:6) which is now ongoing (Isa 63:1). The joy that will be ‘upon their heads’ is an obvious inversion of the more common demonstration of lament in putting dust upon the head (Josh 7:6; Lam 2:10). They are ‘the redeemed’ or ‘the ransomed’ because a ‘price’ has been paid for them (Mic 6:4; Isa 1:27).(4) The texts that come closest to Exod 23:20 are those which are simply about a way across the wilderness (i.e. they are not about the crossing of the Red Sea). For example, And I will lead the blind in a way that they know not, in paths that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground. These are the things I will do, and I will not forsake them. Isa 42:16 (RSV)And I will make all my mountains a way, and my highways shall be raised up. Lo, these shall come from afar, and lo, these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of Syene. Isa 49:11-12 (RSV)Pao fails to mark the distinctions in ‘the way’ figures of Isaiah, 40, 42, 43, 49, 51 and 52, and he coalesces the texts into an amorphous whole. He states, “The fact that ‘the Way’ signifies the salvific act of God on behalf of his people explains why ‘the Way’ is prepared for both Yahweh and his people.” This explains nothing of the sort: there is a fundamental difference between (1) the way across the wilderness; (2) the way across the Red Sea; (3) the departure from Egypt; and (4) and a way that the people prepare for the coming of Yahweh. Crucially, the Baptist’s ministry is described using Isaiah 40 – the way that the people prepare for Yahweh, and this is because the voice crying in the wilderness is a messenger that heralds the coming of the Arm of the Lord to deliver the people; this is not an exodus paradigm.IdentityIt is well-known that ‘the Way’ is a term of identity for the early Christians (Acts 9:1-2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). The term serves to distinguish Christians over against those who are not believers (Acts 19:9), but the expression is not associated with characterizations such as ‘true people of God’; those of the Way are believers in the coming kingdom of God, but ‘the Way’ is how they are distinguished within communities of their own people,But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets… Acts 24:14 (RSV)The use of the term ‘sect’ shows that Christians were distinguished, but were part of Israel. A sect can consider that they have ‘the truth’ and are the true heirs of the teaching of the Scriptures, but this doesn’t mean that they considered that they were a new people apart from Israel and now set against them in the purpose of God. The point here is that the narrative detail surrounding use of ‘the Way’ doesn’t support the stronger thesis that Pao expresses by asserting, “With this assertion, the Christians claim to be the true people of God and the true continuation of ancestral traditions.” The problem here is not that a sect claimed to have the truth and thus claim to the ‘the Way’, but rather that Christians claimed to be the true people of God in contrast to Israel.The terminology of ‘the Way’ is based in Isa 40:3-5 in which the people are exhorted to prepare a way for Yahweh. We have noted above that this is not an exodus typology (contra Pao); equally, Isa 40:3-5 is not the beginning of a new age of salvation, nor is it redefining the people of God – it only serves to define the faithful within the people of God. We saw above a similar use of ‘the Way’ as an identity marker in 1QS 9:16-21, also based on Isa 40:3-5. Josephus’ social analysis of his people includes various sects, but, crucially, they are set within the body of the nation, and he includes the Essenes (Ant. 13.174).ConclusionThe two-dimensional model of ages succeeding ages in a linear fashion is misleading (Ante-Diluvian, Patriarchal, Mosaic, Christian). It can give the impression that the Mosaic Age has been succeeded by another age; or that Israel is no longer relevant in the purpose of God. We might describe the latest age as the Age of the Church or the Kingdom Age, or just simply the New Age. A common proposal is that the Mosaic dispensation has been replaced by the dispensation of the Gospel; this is a gospel of preaching about a coming kingdom. But the preaching of the gospel is a beginning set within the Abrahamic framework as our model makes clear. This model is not replaced, nor has it come to an end – the kingdom age is part of the Abrahamic cone of history and serves as its conclusion. In fact, the original Adamic cone also comes to an end at this time when the last enemy is destroyed – death – at the conclusion of the kingdom (1 Cor 15:26). How then should we place the resurrection of Christ? It is the actual beginning of a new creation, a spiritual basis of life. The contrast is with the old creation with its first man, but this creation is neither of Adam nor in Adam, it is solely in and of Christ who is a life-giving spirit. Clearly, the resurrection is of heaven and from heaven, whereas the ages of Adam are of the earth. Those who are resurrected will be ‘the heavenlies’ over the restored kingdom of God on earth (1 Cor 15:47-48; Eph 2:6). Thus, because the resurrection is ‘of heaven’, it is not part of the dispensational history of the earth. One view is that after the apostolic era, Christianity became apostate. Is this the significant fact? It underpins restoration and radical reformation churches today. But, what if the significant happening was the dissolution of the Jewish state and the scattering of the Jews by the Romans? When Jerusalem was ransacked and the temple destroyed, ‘Israel’ was returned to its ‘exilic’ state. If the church was part of Israel, then it also came to an end at the same time as Jews were deported from the land. Christianity becoming completely Gentile, disconnected from Israel, and apostate, is just confirmation that the church came to an end after AD70 (a natural consequence). What then is a Christian? A Christian during these ‘times of the Gentiles’ is someone who believes the faith left behind by the apostles and waits for the restoration of Israel that will begin with the coming of the spirit of Elijah. APPsalm 22P. WynsIntroductionThis article will suggest new perspectives for Psalm 22 and also attempt historical contextualization as well as resolving some difficult textual problems. Psalm 22Psalm 22 is incredibly important in the New Testament. R. D. Patterson summarises:“Pride of place for the use of Psalm 22 belongs to the writers of the NT. Direct citations of this psalm occur fourteen times (cf. v. 1 with Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; v. 5 with Rom 3:5; v. 7 with Matt 27:39; Mark 15:29; v. 8 with Matt 27:43; Luke 23:35; v. 18 with Matt 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24; v. 22 with Heb 2:12; v. 23 with Rev 19:5; v. 31 with John 19:30). In addition, J. H. Reumann suggests that allusions to the whole psalm are reflected in the NT (e.g. Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 24:27; Acts 13:29; 1 Pet 1:11), as well as several of the psalms individual verses (cf. v. 13 with 1 Pet 5:8; v. 15 with John 19:28; v. 21 with 2 Tim 4:17; v. 24 with Heb 5:7; v. 28 with Rev 11:15; 19:16; v. 29 with Matt 27:42; Mark 15:31)”. Of course, the importance of Psalm 22 is magnified because, not only was it (at the very least) partially recited by Jesus during the crucifixion, it was also (actively but unconsciously) fulfilled by the various protagonists/participants. A perceptive study is provided by H. A. Whittaker in his Studies in the Gospels. Our first step towards achieving a new perspective on Psalm 22 was provoked by the insight provided by G. Booker into the citation in Matt 27:46 (Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?) adapted from Ps 22:1, in which he suggests links with Gen 22:13.The phrase “Why hast thou forsaken me?” is linked by both Whittaker and Booker with Gen 22:13 through the NT use of sabachthani. However, the Hebrew for “thicket” in Genesis is sebak ($bs) and the problem is further complicated by the fact that the English translations of the Greek texts of Matthew and Mark do not indicate that Matthew and Mark have very different words written - transliterations (what the audience heard) of the words Jesus spoke. This device is probably used to reflect the audiences’ confusion over hearing (understanding) Eli/Eloi/Elijah and reflects that the original citation (as heard) may have been in a mixture of Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Nevertheless, Matthew (found it necessary) and makes it explicit (by adding the caveat....“that is to say”) that it is a quote from Ps 22:1. In itself this indicates that something unusual is going on.....as if Matthew is saying.....pay attention!! Psalm 22 (KJV)Genesis 22 (KJV)v.1 Why hast thou forsaken me?Matt 27:46 Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?v.13 behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his hornsv.13 And Abram lifted up his eyes and beheld, and lo! a ram caught by his horns in a plant of Sabec (LXE)v.1 ...why art thou so far (qwxr) from helping me...(literally; far from salvation of me)v.11 Be not far (qwxr) from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.v.19 But be not thou far (qwxr) from me, O LORD : O my strength, haste thee to help me.v.4 Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (qwxr) Psalm 22 (KJV)Genesis 22 (KJV)v.4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted......Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.v.4 and thou didst deliver themv.8 My son, God will provide himself a lambv.20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.v.20 Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog. (JPS)v.12 seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.v.30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.v.17 I will multiply thy seed.... thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemiesv.27 and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.v.18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessedE. A. Knapp comments, “If Matthew’s first two words of the quote are Hebrew and Mark’s are Aramaic then the obvious question is what language are the remaining two words, “lama sabachthani” (lema sabacqani)? In an interesting coincidence these words are used in both Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew (the Hebrew used at the time of Yeshua)”.....and, “Where the Psalm has “azavthani” the gospels record Yeshua saying “sabachthani,” which is a word used in both Aramaic and in Mishnaic Hebrew. Logically Matthew wouldn’t have changed “Eloi” to “Eli” to make it match the words of Psalm 22 and then not change “sabachthani” to “azavthani” as well, in order to make the quotation of the Psalm match precisely. It is almost completely unrecognized and unappreciated that Yeshua’s use of “sabachthani” in place of “azavthani” is actually a well-known rabbinic technique. Rabbis used this technique of replacing a word with a synonym to point the discerning reader to a midrash (rabbinic interpretation/teaching) about another related verse.” The Septuagint (LXX) employs sabek in Gen 22:13 which is a transliteration rendered by the English Septuagint translation (LXE) as “a plant of Sabec”, similar to the Aramaic sabachthani and rendered as a Greek transliteration (sabacqani) in Matt 27:46. The suffix “thani” means: you do this to me. The Greek transliteration of Sabach is also similar to the well-known Hebrew word Zabach, which is used for sacrifice, however, the solution proposed by Whittaker and Booker (although conveying a similar concept as sacrifice) is preferable, “My God, My God why have you have entangled me?” (Like a ram, i.e. like a sacrifice [Zabach], trapped in a thicket, in a bush of entanglement [Sabec].) Clearly, we are dealing with multiple associations and word-plays all leading back to the sacrifice that God provided in Genesis 22.This is further supported by the Psalmist’s emphasis on the word “far” or “afar” used multiple times to express a feeling of abandonment (God is distant), a deliberate contrast with Abraham’s faithful view into the distant (same word) future; “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). The word “rejoice”, acting as a play on the meaning of Isaac’s name (‘laughter’). The contrast is between the “eye of faith”, that sees the distant future clearly (afar off), with loss of hope that accuses God himself of being distant (afar off) and disinterested in human salvation. However, this understandable human feeling of divine abandonment is reversed in the second half of the Psalm. Booker comments on Ps 22:1 as follows; “Why art thou so far from helping me? Contrast Psa. 35:3; 62:1, 6, 7. This so far is almost literal, for Golgotha was “without the camp”, remote from the Holy of Holies and on the north side of the temple area: Lev. 1:11.” We might add that the taunt in v. 8, “He trusted on the Lord” is literally “he rolled himself”. Patterson notes, “The Hebrew verbal form (lg, gal) could be understood as a perfect, “he trusts/trusted,” paralleling the previous perfect, “he delights,” rather than the imperative of the MT. The basic meaning of the root is “be round, roll.” Used figuratively the verb takes on special spiritual significance. The Psalmist advises the believer “to roll himself upon the Lord in total commitment to God” (Ps 37:5).” In a footnote Patterson adds the following, “In a crucial moment of Israel’s redemptive experience Joshua pronounced God’s declaration, “This day have I rolled away (galal) the reproach of Egypt from off you” (Josh 5:9). Accordingly, that place was named Gilgal. Interestingly, the root was also used to form the word for skull—gulgoleth. The Aramaic form of the word was to be forever remembered in the Greek NT as the place of our Saviour’s crucifixion—Golgotha.” The Gilgal link is important because it supports the Abrahamic theme (the Abrahamic covenant was renewed at Gilgal). Golgotha (the “far place” outside the camp) became a place of covenant renewal and rolling away (gal) of reproach, a circumcision of the “heart” (cf. Jer. 4:4) for the faithful children of Abraham. The reference to the “fathers” trusting in God is a self-evident reference to the patriarch’s faith and particularly to that of the eponymous forefather Abraham which is used by Paul as the NT exemplar of justification by faith (although faith also requires “works” but not self-justifying “works of law”). What immense faith did it require for Abraham to be prepared to kill his son? Particularly in an era where the “gods” often demanded human sacrifice. Truly, Abraham must have seen “afar off” and trusted the revelation of God. (Abraham believed in the steadfast mercy of Yah; in the promise of an heir; rather than believing that Yah was capricious like the foreign “gods”).The Psalmist appeals for the rescue of his “darling” (KJV), or, “only one” (JPS, Jewish Publication Society) this directly links to the “thine only” (KJV) in Gen 22:12. Note the word son is placed in italics in the KJV as it is not present in the original Hebrew. The Psalmist has only one life and it is dear to him and Abraham has only one son, only one child of promise. In that sense, Isaac is the firstborn (not Ishmael) and becomes “thine only” (son) in Genesis 22 and this dovetails with Zech 12:10, “they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn”. Note literally; mourning for only (this is the only one whom they previously pierced). Booker comments on Ps 22:20, “Deliver....my darling” as follows, “This highly unusual expression means ‘my very special one’ (Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Psa. 35:17; 68:6 (solitary); Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech. 12:10). LXX reads “my firstborn”.Rivka Ulmer notes that Rabbinic hermeneutics situate Psalm 22:21 in the context of sacrificing a son, “The interpretation of the verse Save my soul from the sword, yehidati [my only one] from the power of the dog (Ps. 22:21) does not only focus upon the lemma “dog,” but also upon “my only one.” Genesis Rabbah 46:7 (see Sifre Deuteronomy 313) contains an interpretation relating this Psalm to the Aqedah, the sacrifice of Isaac. Rabbinic hermeneutics situate Psalm 22:21 in the context of sacrificing a son. Your only son (Gen. 22:12) is implied and juxtaposed to my only one (Ps. 22:21); the text states God said to Abraham: “I give merit to you, as if I had asked you to sacrifice yourself and you did not refuse it.” My only one in this case would indicate that God recognized Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. In another midrash, Numbers Rabbah 17:2, a lemma from Genesis Your only son, referring to Isaac, is changed to “your soul,” proof-text is Psalm 22:21. The ram sacrificed saves not only Isaac, but also Abraham. These passages show a nexus between Psalm 22:21 and Isaac, the “only son” of Abraham. The problematic passage in Genesis which ignores Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, is clarified through this interpretation of Psalm 22:21. The second part of the verse containing the dog motif is implied. The dog motif could refer to the biblical Moloch who required child sacrifice”.The reference to “seed” is also self-evidently an Abrahamic theme employed by Paul in the NT to express the singular seed Christ but also all those who are “in him” (i.e. his descendants or offspring) and true inheritors of the covenant promises. Psalm 22 concludes with the same “seed” theme as Genesis 22. The interim conclusion is that Psalm 22 (and therefore implicitly the crucifixion event in the Gospels) draw powerful parallels with the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22.The Living GodWhether or not a critical or a conservative stance is adopted, Psalm 22 is at least 2,500 years or, arguably, nearer 3,000 years old and therefore composed anywhere between 1,000 to 500 years before the crucifixion event. The antiquity of the Psalm should (but often does not) influence the way the Psalm is interpreted. Psalm 22 clearly reflects cultic elements that are often missed and therefore lead to interpretive errors. Cultic ritual allusions, referencing either the tabernacle (at Shiloh or the temporary set up by David at Jerusalem), or the first temple (built by Solomon and established until BC 586) are abundant (and often ignored) in this Psalm. Yahweh dwells between the “cherubim” (or “living creatures”) as the mercy-seat represents his earthly throne. Numerous references are made to the “faces” of the cherubim (~ynp paniym: Hebrew plural but always expressed as singular). Psalm 22Notesv.3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel Isa 6:1-3 I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims … And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.Psalm 22Notesv.21 thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicornsRV, RSV, and NIV read wild oxen. This is a reference to the ox-faced cherubimEzek 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and each of the four had the face of an eagle.v.24 neither hath he hid his face from himIsa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.v.27 all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. Literally: and they-shall-worship to faces-of you all-of families-of nationsYahweh is “enthroned” on the “divine chariot”, think here of the “fiery chariot” that snatched away Elijah in a whirlwind. Of course, this is visual language representing the cherubim which are over the mercy-seat. The ancients did not understand the glory of Yahweh as permanently dwelling on the ark (“the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee”). Moreover, the face(s) of the cherubim praise Yahweh (Holy, Holy, Holy) and Yah “inhabits” (or is enthroned) in the midst of these praises. Therefore, the face(s) do not represent Yahweh himself, but rather elements of his redeemed creation and worshiping towards the face(s) means joining in with the praises of the redeemed (the cherubim). The face(s) are therefore understood as an integral part of Yah’s “glory” (no doubt the faces shinning with reflected glory) and uttering praises. They (the faces) are not Yah, but rather they reflect the fullness of his work and therefore they also represent Yah in his redemptive, salvific aspect.If our analysis is correct, then perhaps other verses should be interpreted in this light (i.e. in the light of cultic worship);My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought (tpv) me to (l) the dust of death. Ps 22:15 (KJV revised)All of the versions treat the rare (4x) tpv neutrally (cf. the LXX, ‘brought me down’) as “brought/lay/set”. The verb could be more specific to fires, i.e., “set [on the fire/on the hearth]” as in “Set (tpv) on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets” (2 Kgs.4:38) and “Set (tpv) on a pot, set (tpv) it on, and also pour water into it” (Ezek 24:3). In the last instance, Ezekiel enacts a parable where the city of Jerusalem is likened to a pot and the people (bones and meat) are stewed dry and burnt on the fire. Our suggestion is that Ps 22:15 presents the figure of an earthenware pot (not a potsherd) burnt dry on the hearth stones of the altar of burnt offering. “He has dried up my strength and my tongue cleaves to my mouth; like an earthenware pot he has set me down in the dust of death”. (My paraphrase) The imagery reflects a neglected earthenware vessel left to burn dry on Yahweh’s altar.......nothing left but ash (dust of death).Perhaps we can also reconfigure v.21,“Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns” Ps 22:21 (KJV)We have already noted (above table) that “unicorns” denotes the “wild-oxen” face of the cherubim, but what of the lion? The first part of the verse as an exclamatory appeal: Save me! And the second part as the response: From mouth of the lion and from the horns of the wild-oxen you answered me. The victim appeals for help and the immediate response comes from the lion-ox faces of the cherubim (symbolizing Judah/Israel, Ezek 1:10, 10:14). In other words, Yahweh, who inhabits the redeemed of Judah-Israel responds from the mercy-seat in the temple/tabernacle. However, we must look beyond the tabernacle/temple with its cherubim iconography (otherwise they become mere idols), beyond the visionary cherubim of Ezekiel (otherwise they become mere mythology), even beyond the heaven of heavens (otherwise they become a mere physical containment and the creator is greater than his creation), for Yah chooses to manifest himself in the metaphysical, in the character and spirit of beings conformed to his image, Jesus Christ and his saints. Animal ImageryOne of the most debated (and intractable problems between Jews and Christians) is the translation of Psalm 22:16;“For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet” Ps 22:16 (KJV)The JPS version has the following: “For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet”.We will discuss the textual differences below. For now, we simply note that the MT represented by the JPS apparently does not make sense at this point. Following the JPS, it literally reads,“For dogs surround me, a company, wicked ones, they have encompassed me as the lion (at) my hands and my feet” A lion does not “encompass/encircle” hands and feet. It doesn’t even bite or snap at them (like a dog/jackal might) it stalks, crouches, leaps and kills by grabbing the victim’s neck. Moreover, the solution that we have proposed (the lion cherubim face) would be destroyed by this contrary symbolism. The lion is portrayed as a royal beast denoting strength or courage whereas the dog was a wild pack animal (not the domesticated pet of today) used to denote idolatry (male cult prostitutes are called “dogs”). The following chiasm can be constructed: A1 STRONG BULLS (surrounding) v.12 A2 MOUTH OF LION (gaping comparison) v.13A3 DOGS CIRCLING (wicked assembly) v.16a B3 POWER OF DOG (deliverance from) v.20B2 MOUTH OF LION (answer from) v.21aB1 HORNS WILD OX (answer from) v.21bThe translation, ‘as a lion (at) my hands and feet’, would form the centre of the chiasm (placing A3 and B3 on either side). This is a possibility and would balance the reverse parallelism by placing ‘lion’ at the centre:Bull-Lion-Dog-Lion-Dog-Lion-OxHowever, as we have suggested, the text of Ps 22:16 does not make sense, particularly with regards to Genesis 22 typology. In fact, neither does the choice of ‘to pierce’ as we would expect hands and feet to be ‘bound’ if the sacrifice of Isaac is typed. We will examine the debate on this verse in more depth below, for now we note the balance of the reverse parallelism. A1 and B1 are coupled by the idea of strength (the horn being a symbol of power), A2 and B2 are coupled by the motif of the mouth. In A2 the mouth of the bulls (strong enemies) is compared to that of a hungry lion. The enemies are not lions, but they have the appetite of a hungry lion (a desire for usurping royalty?). B2 depicts the response (for deliverance) coming from the lion’s mouth. This is obviously intended as a contrast – The enemies might well be strong bulls with mouths like (compared to) a hungry lion, but the voice of deliverance comes from the cherubim, i.e., from the actual royal ‘lion-mouth’ (and from the ox-horn). We can speak of peripeteia (a reversal of fortune) and this is emphasised by reversing the chiasmic structure. The “Dogs/Dog” in both A3 and B3 is unambiguously the enemy, intent on harassing and killing the victim – which is why it is strange that the MT should have ‘lion’ at this point?? Again, note that “power” is a dog attribute, providing each animal with a unique form of control: Bull (Strength)-Dog (Power)-Ox (Horn). Also note that the theme of surrounding/encompassing/encircling is a very important theme in the poem. The Textual Problem in Psalm 22:16Are the evil doers at the victim’s hands and feet like a lion, or did they pierce his hands and feet, or perhaps something else? This well-known textual problem is given a comprehensive treatment by Glenn Miller. Miller concludes that the two best readings are “pierced” and “tied” with the first reading to be preferred. The data is tabulated below:Version DateHeb/GkTranslit.InterpretationLXX (Septuagint) 300-100 BCο?ρυ?σσωdig/pierceNahal Hever Scroll(5/6 HevPs ? Col. XI, frag. 9)50-100 AD????ka'aruthey dug/pierced?MT 1000 AD????ka'arias a lionIt should not be assumed in advance that the MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts. The Hebrew in the earliest copy of the Psalm (Nahal Hever Scroll) is k’ry, with the waw ending y, indicating a 3pp verb form (“they dug/pierced”). This is strong evidence against the MT “like a lion”, and we should also note that some MT manuscripts have k’ry. The Original setting of the PsalmAll prophetic texts have a short term first (typical) context and a longer term actualization (fulfilment). Psalm 22 is no exception to this rule, and although it may not be possible to recover a plausible original context, at the very least an attempt should be made. It is not sufficient to label the Psalm as “Messianic” and simply ignore the original setting by stating that the Psalmist was only vaguely aware of the meaning of his own writings. The Psalms express heart-felt personal emotions and are obviously based on very real situations. Those experiences are employed to inspire (divine inspiration) great literary art and messianic prophecy, but that does not detract from the original context. This is (according to the superscription) a Davidic Psalm but that does not necessarily mean that it was written by David. It may have been completely composed or perhaps partially composed by him, but the title (Hebrew) “for David” can mean “pertaining to David”, or “for the Davidide” (i.e., a Davidic King) or, perhaps it is generic, denoting a certain Davidic style. A brief survey of accessible Internet scholarship on date, authorship and situation is tabulated below:ScholarAuthorEventBib. Ref.Scholar ref.DelitzschDavidDesert of Maon1 Sam 23:25–26Delitzsch, Psalms 1.305.MollDaviddisillusioned old ageMoll, Psalms 138, 168.Alexander & Dahood, and othersUnknownAlexander, Psalms106; Dahood, Psalms1.138.Anderson & TostengardUnknownsicknessAnderson, Psalms 1.185; Tostengard, “Psalm 22” 167; Frost, “Psalm 22”, 102.Rabbinic (Kimchi)Esther PeriodHaman’s plotMidrashHitzig & HolladayJeremiah PrisonDelitzsch, Psalms 1.304; Holladay, “Background”, 153–64.CraigieGenericany sick IsraeliteCraigie, Psalms 1–50, 198.Buttenwieser &Stuhlmueller &OlshausenMaccabean EraButtenwieser, Psalms, 588–606; Stuhlmueller, “Psalm 22“, BTB 12 (1982): 86–90; Olshausen.PattersonDavid2 Sam 22:4–7, 17–20, 49–50Patterson, “Psalm 22”, 214-215.BookerDavidAbsalom’s rebellion & Saul’s persecution2 Sam 15–17,1 Sam 20; 21:1–15Booker, Psalm Studies.Thirtle Ps 22:1-21DavidZiklag1 Sam 30.1-6Thirtle, OT Problems, 315.Thirtle Ps 22:22-31HezekiahSuffering ServantIsaiah 53 etc.Thirtle, OT Problems, 315.Only authorship by David and/or Hezekiah holds any linguistic, stylistic and intertextual merit. Later attributions can be ruled out on these grounds alone, and “unknown” and “generic” settings are contrary to everything we understand about messianic/prophetic scriptures. The suggestion of dual authorship made by Thirtle is the strongest, although a simple delineation into two distinct “halves” is unlikely and contrary the unifying chiastic structure. This psalm is in two parts –vv. 1-21 by David; the remainder dating from the time of Hezekiah. The situation of the former may be found in the spoiling of Ziklag by the Amalekites (1 Sam.30.1-6); though the words go beyond the experiences of the king, and provide expressions which would describe a greater persecution and deeper woe to which his promised seed would be subjected (vv.16-18). Coming into use in the time of Hezekiah, the Psalm was extended in remarkable terms, and possibly adapted in other ways. On v.24, cp Isa.53.3; and on v.30, cp. Isa.53.8, 10. The experiences of the subject of this hymn shall be celebrated in the great congregation vv.22, 25; cp. Ps.35.18; 144.9, and on his account men shall turn unto the Lord in penitent devotion (v.27.) such as he brings to subjection shall bow before him, although he was not able to keep his own soul alive a seed shall serve him: it shall be accounted by the Lord for a generation or declared successor to the throne; cp Isa.38.12; 53.8. Men shall come and talk of his righteousness to a people yet to be born – because this hath been done (vv.29-31). The story is that of the servant of the Lord; the Psalter and prophetic writings alike being concerned with Hezekiah as the great messianic type.That this Psalm uses earlier “Davidic material” and “Davidic Styling” is undeniable. We propose that the Psalmist is using Davidic phrases that correspond with his own situation. Thus, he would start the Psalm with a rough chiastic structure and an idea of how the Psalm commences (forsaken) and how it ends (victorious). Then he would employ terminology from Davidic Psalms that are relevant to his situation (of suffering/abandonment) and other prophetic writings (some of them contemporary). Thus, Davidic Psalm(s) were “recycled” or rather used as a resource to describe similar situations. This would explain both the continuity and the differences (with earlier material) and negates the necessity to posit abrupt transitions from earlier to later material. The chiastic structure and poetic nature of the Psalm and multiple intertextual connections demonstrates that the Psalm was carefully (and ingeniously) crafted as a unified work – and by using multiple scrolls (other OT books) that were (at that time) available to him, the author achieves continuity with the past and contemporary relevance to his situation. But that is not the complete picture as the Psalm is also messianic. So it has a future aspect that the author cannot know despite his best efforts at continuity and modernization. Although the Psalmist labours to create a work of great literary art and profound sacred expression using all the tools and knowledge available to him it is only through divine inspiration that the whole becomes greater than the parts by taking on a messianic/prophetic dimension.We must move away from the idea that the Psalm was somehow “dictated” from heaven in its final form and realise that we are dealing with a joint project between God and man. The Psalmist is not an instrument (like a pen) but the subject of the Psalm. His emotions and experiences and literary genius are inextricably woven into the mysterious guiding inspiration that allows the Psalm to become messianic. The outcome of this ingenious process is that the Psalm speaks of past suffering and victory (David) current suffering and victory (Hezekiah) and future suffering and victory (Christ). Connections to DavidPsalm 22 has many similarities with Psalm 18, which occurs also in its historical setting in 2 Samuel 22 where it is repeated (note that 2 Samuel 20-24 form a miscellaneous collection of records not in chronological order). Certain small differences in the text are discernible between the two versions (Psalm 18 / 2 Samuel 22). Therefore, Psalm 18 is definitely from the time of David and it contains multiple thematic links with Psalm 22:Ps 18:17: “He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from them which hated me: for they were too strong for me”. cf. strong (different word) Bulls in Ps 22:12.Ps 18:6: “In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears”. Note that Yahweh rides a cherub in Ps 18:10.Ps 18:41: “They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not”., contrast Psalm 22 in which the victim (initially) receives no answer (forsaken) – in Psalm 18 the enemies are forsaken.Ps 18:19: “....he delivered me, because he delighted in me” and Ps 22:8; “He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted (same Heb. word) in him” (cf. 2 Sam 22:20).There are numerous intertextual links with other Davidic Psalms, suffice to say that stylistically this Psalm can be described as “for David” or Davidic......but not necessarily composed by David.Connections to HezekiahThe connections to Hezekiah are prolific and not just in the first half of the Psalm (contra Thirtle).(1) We find similar language in Isaiah 41, although Psalm 22 would reflect the situation with Hezekiah before 701 and Isaiah 41 is after. Isaiah 41Psalm 22v.11 (enemy) ashamed and confoundedv.5 (faithful) were not confoundedv.14 worm Jacobv.6 But I am a worm, and no manv.17 their tongue faileth for thirstv.15 dried up....my tongue cleaveth to my jaws;v.17 will not forsake themv.1 my God, why hast thou forsaken me?v.20 the LORD hath done thisv.31 he hath done thisThe same word for worm ([lwt as in “scarlet worm”) is used in both passages (Ps 22:6/Isa 41:14) and also in the same sense in other eighth-seventh century era writings (Isa 66:4, Job 25:6).(2) Scorning and mocking is a feature of Hezekiah’s experience,Ps 22:7-8 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.This is not the first time Hezekiah was scorned: 2 Chron 30:10 So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh even unto Zebulun: but they laughed them to scorn, and mocked them. His attempt at reformation compliments the typology of Isaac (which permeates Psalm 22):Gen 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.The legitimate heir to the covenant being mocked! In particular, Hezekiah’s emissaries were scorned by the northern tribe of Manasseh:Ps 22:12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.Bashan is a district east of the Jordan known for its fertility which was given to the half-tribe of Manasseh. Hezekiah, Yahweh, and the Jerusalem temple were also mocked by Sennacherib;2 Kgs 19:21-22 This is the word that the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel.(3) The psalmist’s father is not mentioned. In Ps 22: 9-10, images of the psalmist’s mother abound, but no mention is made of the father. Why? Because Yahweh had promised that he would be a Father to a son of David. (2 Sam 7:14: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”). Ps 22:9-10 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.Ps 22:9-10 echoes the Immanuel prophecy! The prophecy is applicable to Hezekiah in the first instance. Hezekiah’s mother has a name that means “Yah is my Father” (Abijah, 2 Chron 29:1).Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.(4) Delight and ‘being forsaken’ are important in Hezekiah’s story. Hezekiah’s wife is called “Hephzibah” (2 Kgs 21:1) which means my “delight is in her” and Jerusalem is symbolically named “Hephzibah” by Yahweh.........the same word used in Ps 22:8 and a reversal of the theme of being forsaken (Ps.22:1).Isa 62:4-5 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land anymore be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.(5) Hezekiah’s illness is reflected in the psalm,Isa 53:5 But he was wounded (Heb: pierced cf. Ps. 22:16) for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.Isa 38:13 I reckoned till morning, that, as a lion, so will he break all my bones: from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me.Interestingly, Isa 38:13 ‘as a lion’ would complement the MT of Ps 22:16 (see discussion above). However, , whether the MT text or the DSS text is chosen, they both point to Isaiah 53 (either v.5 “pierced” or v.13 “as a lion”) connecting the Suffering Servant with Psalm 22.(6) Hezekiah victorious,Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.Ps 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.Isa 38:20 The LORD was ready to save me: therefore, we will sing my songs (i.e., Ps.22) to the stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house of the LORD.Ps 22:16 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.Hezekiah would not die childless; he would have “a seed” (the travail of his soul). Christ was that seed......who would live forever. Christ did not die childless. We are his seed.SpeculationsA point of interest is Isa 29:1, where Jerusalem is called ‘the lion of God’ or ‘Ariel’. ‘Ariel’ is an ominous name applied to Jerusalem (Isa 29:1, 2, 7). The Qere reading of Ezek 43:15-16 has h’ry’l (Ariel) whereas the Kethib reading has hhr’l (‘mountain of God’) in v. 15 and h’r’yl (‘altar-hearth’) in v.16. and in the other two instances as ’?rī’ ēl - -each of these three examples is preceded by the definite article. The Targum paraphrases both Isaiah and Ezekiel as ‘altar’, and from the context in Isaiah, this seems to be the preferable explanation of the word as applied to the city. R. E. Averbeck comments: “The 5x in Isa 29:1-2, 7 seem to involve a wordplay where, at least in one instance (29:2b, “Yet I will besiege Ariel; she will mourn and lament, she will be to me like an altar hearth”, NIV), the translation “altar hearth” once again seems appropriate in the context. Some suggest that this rendering is appropriate in all five of its occurrences in Isa 29 because of the festival context (v.1b; see Oswalt,526, the rendering of the term ’r ’l as the “altar” in line 12 of the Mesha Inscription according to KAI 2:169,175, and other references in Dijkstra, 29 n.28)”.Whittaker envisages several possibilities for ‘Ariel’ in Isaiah 29 with the first being a reference to the altar, the second to destruction by fire (hearth of God cf. Ezek 11:3; Jer. 1:13) or, thirdly “lion of God” in a negative (hostile) sense. His fourth proposal is interesting,“Ariel can also mean “I will provide a ram”, as happened at the intended sacrifice of Isaac (Gen.22:14). The implied idea is, then, one of rescue when all seems hopeless. Compare also David’s provision of sacrifice at the same place, staving off disaster in Jerusalem when the angel of destruction went forth (2 Sam. 24:16, 25).”Whittaker is incorrect, although ’?rī ’ēl, does work as a word-play on ayil, the Hebrew for ram. While it is true that the ’?rī ’ēl of Isaiah 29 is not the same as the ka’ari of MT Ps 22:16, a thematic connection can be found with the word ‘encompass/around/circle’ (@qn):Ps 22:16 MTIsa 29:1ka’ari (like a lion)’?rī ’ēl (lion of God/ altar /hearth)victimsacrifice dogs circling/surrounding (@qn)feasts circling /cycling (@qn) In Isaiah 29, the people are ironically encouraged to fulfil the sacrificial feast cycle (round and round, year after year), ignorant of the fact that the “lion of God” (Jerusalem) will actually become an altar (the hearth of God) with themselves as the sacrificial victims (while the enemy goes “round and round” besieging them like a pack of wild dogs). One wonders if there was some kind of cross-fertilization (at the least thematically) between the lion themes of Ps 22:16 and Isa 29:1?Finally, my preferred reading for 22:16 is “tied or bound” rather than “pierced” because even though “pierced” has a distribution advantage (Miller); “tied or bound” does better justice to the underlying Isaac typology. The LXX translators obviously had Hebrew texts in front of them which they believed (interpreted) as “pierced”. Aquila of Sinope, a 2nd-century AD Greek convert to Christianity and later to Judaism, undertook two translations of the Psalms from Hebrew to Greek. In the first, he renders the verse “they disfigured my hands and feet”; in the second he revised this to “they have bound my hands and feet”. Both his interpretations were obviously biased by his religious beliefs (first Christian then Jewish). In the last instance, it doesn’t really matter. Whether directly or indirectly all translational choices of the disputed word in Ps 22:16 point to Christ either directly or indirectly (through typology). So, God is able to preserve his word against the malignant tendentiousness of men, for the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men.ConclusionPsalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm recited by Jesus on the cross. It is replete with Isaac typology because it is based on the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22. It is also couched in Davidic language appropriated from the Psalms of David, but ultimately Psalm 22 tells the story of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. We would classify it as a ‘Hezekiah Psalm’ made “for David”, or done “in the style of David”. Interestingly, Isaac also acts as a type for Hezekiah (who in turn types Christ). Therefore, the Psalm is polyvalent, complex and extremely poignant. It tells the story not only of David’s distress at rebellion and persecution, but also of the betrayal and Passover deliverance of King Hezekiah and as such is the perfect messianic psalm, with Abraham, Isaac, David and Hezekiah pointing in a direct line of promise (concentrating in the Davidic line) to the fulfilment of the covenants in Christ.People say that the New Testament (NT) is ‘for us’ and the Old Testament (OT) was ‘for them’. By this, they mean that the OT was for Israel (the Jews) and the NT is for Christians. But what if the OT and the NT are equally for us with no priority to be assigned to either – they are just the Jewish Scriptures? How would this work? It would mean that just as we have to apply the OT to us, we also have to apply the NT, recognising that both are historically bound to other people and groups having a certain role in the purpose of God in their times. In each case, the people are Israel and the church. The implication of this is that parts of the NT are not relevant today because we are part of a different period in the purpose of God. Another consequence is that, as the Prophets indicate, we are waiting for the bestowal of the Elijah spirit before the great and terrible Day of the Lord – such a spirit might lead to a third testament, and this will be for those alive in the last days. APA preface to a book is short and enjoyable because it is the author’s personal testimony to how and why s/he wrote the book. It will contain thanks to various people and even detail about the author’s family and life. For example, J. D. G. Dunn mentions in the final volume of his trilogy, Christianity ion the Making (July 2015), that during its writing, he reduced his personal library from 7000 to 3000 books, (one of which he sold to me). With books in NT scholarship, the preface will often give thanks to God and the Lord Jesus Christ for the blessings of family and the opportunity afforded for writing the book; the thanks may mention the grace of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (as in Dunn, who is a Methodist). This can engender a conflict for a reader if, upon reading the book, it turns out that the book has many errors. APColossians 1:15-20: The Wisdom of Christological MonotheismA. PerryN. T. Wright opens his exegesis of Col 1:15-20 by saying the passage “exhibits a characteristically Pauline form of what we may call christological monotheism”. His exegesis takes the line that the passage expresses a Wisdom Christology. The claim is an important positioning statement because Wright wants to include Christ within the Jewish monotheistic framework of Paul’s thought in such a way as to allow a Trinitarian development. At the conclusion of his study of the passage, he says, “It is now, I believe, necessary to assert that, although the writers of the New Testament did not themselves formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, they bequeathed to their successors a manner of speaking and writing about God which made it, or something very like it, almost inevitable.” We will examine Wright’s essay on Col 1:15-20. We have two questions: first, whether Col 1:15-20 is that particularly monotheistic let alone whether it exhibits ‘christological monotheism’; and secondly, whether it expresses a Wisdom Christology and teaches the pre-existence of Christ in the person of the Son (v. 13). We take the text in its final form. Hence, there are many issues we leave to one side such as authorship (we take it to be by Paul); composition (we take it to be all from the hand of Paul); and literary form (we take it to be poetic in structure and maybe a hymn). We are interested in just its intertextual links with the Jewish Scriptures and other NT writings. We have divided the article into two sections: the first (Section A) is a straightforward exegesis assuming no more about the ‘powers’ of v. 16 than that they are powers in the heavens and on earth. The second (Section B) is a discussion of the traditional topic of the ‘principalities and powers’ of v. 16.Section AIntroductionJ. D. G. Dunn opens his discussion of Col 1:15-20 as follows:The basic movement of thought also seems clear enough – from Christ’s (pre-existent) role in creation (first strophe) to his role in redemption (second strophe), from his relationship with the old creation (protology) to his relationship with the new (eschatology). But whether these first impressions are wholly accurate will depend on what our exegesis of the main clauses and concepts reveals. Dunn’s remark is useful. First impressions are set by our prior assimilation of church doctrine which guides our initial reading. This, however, breaks down upon analysis. The first strophe (vv. 15-18b) does not presuppose pre-existence because it is not about any act(s) relating to the Genesis creation on the part of the Son; it is about Christ’s status vis-à-vis creation as Paul sees it in his day. The second strophe (vv. 18c-20) mentions the new creation, but we shouldn’t take this and read the new creation back into the first strophe – we should maintain a distinction between comments about all of creation and comments about the new creation of men and women in Christ.AnalysisCommentators spend some time discussing the form of the passage, pointing out its parallel structures and poetic nature. There are some alternative analyses on offer, depending on what common vocabulary and grammatical structures the commentator wants to emphasize. In addition, some commentators are wont to speculate about earlier forms of the passage, conceived as a hymn, and about interpolations that disrupt a smooth parallel structure. All of this is of no concern to us, because as repeated readers of the passage, we can easily see connections criss-crossing across the passage and it doesn’t matter whether we emphasize one rather than another, as long as we see them all in time and give each some attention. Our interest is in what the passage teaches us today about Christ using an intertextual method.We have set out a commonly proposed structure of the poem in English below. This is not particularly controversial; it’s a little literal in how it renders the prepositions, but it largely copies that of Wright. The main point to make is that the second (A’) clause gives the basis for the first (A) clause. Christ is pre-eminent among all and this is his status as the firstborn of all creation; but this is based on his being the firstborn from the dead. The clause (B’) is parallel to (B) and stipulates a second aspect of what is ‘in Christ’, namely, ‘all fulness’. This is defined in Col 2:9, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” This fulness is not singular in Christ but in the body with Christ. The ‘all things’ of (B) is specified as ‘thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities’, but the ‘body of the church’ is added in a refrain at the end of (C).Clause (C) states again that all things have been created, but adds ‘through him’ and ‘to him’. This corresponds to (C’) where ‘to reconcile’ is the verb associated with ‘through him’ and ‘to him’. From this temple-motif of all fulness dwelling in Christ and his body, God goes out and reconciles all things to him. (A) Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. (B) For in him all things (ta. pa,nta) were created (evkti,sqh), both in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities.(C) All things (ta. pa,nta) have been created (e;ktistai) through him (diV auvtou/) and to him (eivj auvto.n). And (kai.) he is (auvto,j evstin) above all (pro. pa,ntwn), and in him all things (ta. pa,nta) hold together. And he is (auvto,j evstin) the head of the body of the church. (A’) Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that he himself might be preeminent among all (pa/sin). (B’) For in him he was pleased for all fulness to dwell, (C’) and through him (diV auvtou/) to reconcile all things (ta. pa,nta) to him (eivj auvto,n), having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him (diV auvtou/), I say, whether things (ta.) on the earth or things (ta.) in the heavens.The Col 1:15-20 passage is made up of two paragraphs (vv. 15-18a and vv. 18b-20), set out above. This paragraph structure is constructed around the relative pronouns which all relate to the mention of the Son in v. 13: ...his dear Son, in whom we have... (v. 14) ...who is the image... (vv. 15-18a) ... who is the beginning... (vv. 18b-20)The second paragraph (vv. 18b-20) uses various expressions from the first paragraph (vv. 15-18a), thereby adding supplementary information to the first paragraph.The analysis is straightforward but it throws up these puzzles for us: What are the powers? Are they civil, religious and earthly? Are they angelic, demonic and heavenly? Are they forces in society? Are some of the four terms earthly and some heavenly?If the new creation concerns a body, the church, why is there talk of thrones, lordships, rulers and authorities?When were the powers created? Relative to Paul, are they of the past, the present or the future?The analysis is fairly mainstream; there is nothing in the Greek that concerns us; we translate the Greek prepositions consistently so that their use can be compared across the clauses. It should be clear from the way we have set out the text that the passage reads straightforwardly as an ‘all creation’ description, but that the mention of thrones, lordships, rulers and authorities along with the ‘body of the church’ is puzzling.CreationThere are obvious allusions to creation in Col 1:15-20, but there are also echoes of the exodus in vv. 12-13: the children of Israel were delivered from the power of darkness (Egypt; Exod 10:23); they were redeemed through the blood of the firstborn of Egypt (Isa 43:3) and transferred to the promised land; and they saw light in the face of Moses who had been in the presence of the invisible God. The teaching about the Son (vv. 13, 15) is an Adamic typology: quoting Gen 1:27 (not v. 26), he is ‘the image’ of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Were this a literal (and temporal) statement about the Genesis creation, it would be false because Adam would be the ‘firstborn’ of that creation. Moreover, it is not a statement about any time before the Genesis Creation, such as the beginning of the universe, because the Genesis Creation introduces the birth-death framework for human beings, and it is only in this framework that ‘firstborn’ makes sense (both literally and as a metaphor). The statement cannot therefore be about any pre-existence of the Son. Hence, it follows that the title ‘firstborn of all creation’ is about the position and status of the Son as the firstborn of all creation at that time. The parallelism between v. 18b, ‘firstborn from the dead’ and v. 15b, ‘firstborn of all creation’ is not an equivalence; it is a causal relationship: Christ is the firstborn of all creation because he is firstborn from the dead, but ‘firstborn of all creation’ is a title of the position of the Son as a king. This is shown by the logic, ‘firstborn from the dead in order that (i[na) he might have pre-eminence among all things’. Paul has referred to Christ as God’s ‘dear Son’ or ‘the son of his love’ (v. 13). This picks up on God’s declaration that Jesus was his ‘beloved son’ at his baptism and transfiguration. The ‘beloved’ element of that declaration comes from Gen 22:2 and the sacrifice of Isaac, but these declarations also allude to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (‘well-pleased’, Isa 42:1). The ‘firstborn’ designation is based on Ps 89:27, “Also I will appoint him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth”, which is an expression of Adamic dominion. This last connection is supported by Paul’s linking of the Son to ‘rulers, authorities, thrones, and lordships’ (v. 16c), which partly picks up on the psalmist’s comparison of God’s firstborn to the kings of the earth. It is also supported by the pre-eminence Paul assigns to the Son (v. 18c), which picks up on the psalmist’s ‘higher than’ comparison. So, the Son is the firstborn of all creation because he is the firstborn from the dead. The context in which Christ’s sonship is set is that of the Davidic lineage (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26). Psalm 89:27 shows that ‘firstborn’ is indicative of status and ‘all creation’ gives the scope. Revelation 1:5, “faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth”, also quotes Ps 89:27 (‘firstborn’, ‘kings of the earth’). The two uses of the psalm show that ‘firstborn of the dead’ and ‘firstborn of all creation’ are closely related, but we should note that Colossians has ‘firstborn from the dead’. The question is whether the scope of ‘all creation’ is the old creation or the new creation or—just creation. Paul describes God as invisible, an idea he employs in Rom 1:20, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”. In terms of echoes back to the Jewish Scriptures, Heb 11:27 would suggest Exodus 33-34. Moses was not allowed to ‘see’ God because he would have died. The fact that a human being could be an image of God suggests, not that we have a high Christology in Paul, but a high Anthropology. John makes the same point in John 1:18.The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers debated with the Arians who thought that Christ was part of creation. Colossians is relevant to this debate because it says that the Son is ‘the firstborn from the dead’ and ‘the beginning’. John picks up on Colossians when he describes Christ in Rev 3:14, “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.” This clarifies Col 1:18b to be about the new creation, but this doesn’t mean that Col 1:15 is not more comprehensive, embracing ‘all creation’, and this is our question, and also where the Arians went astray. John takes ‘beginning’ and ‘creation’ from Colossians and establishes that the Son is part of the new creation as its firstborn from the dead. It doesn’t matter that ‘firstborn’ is a metaphor for resurrection from the dead. Genesis clearly shows that the purpose of God in creation was to create an image (a Son; cf. Gen 5:3; Luke 3:38), and this he has done in the person of Jesus Christ. Trinitarianism and Arianism strike at the heart of this Jewish gospel because one party proposes that the Son was eternally begotten while the other party insists that the Son was created before the beginning of Genesis.The difference between ‘firstborn of all creation’ and ‘firstborn from the dead’ is that the first looks like a title whereas the second looks like a statement of fact. Jesus is more explicit about being born from the dead when he states that he was dead but was now alive for evermore (Rev 1:18). We can therefore be certain that Christ has his position as ‘firstborn of all creation’ because he is firstborn from the dead. However, the ‘all’ of ‘all creation’ is picked up in the expression ‘all things’ which Paul then specifies in terms of various powers, and this raises the question of whether ‘all creation’ is just that, all creation.New CreationThe question of what Paul means by ‘rulers, authorities, thrones and lordships’ is contested in scholarship. The topic usually goes under the traditional title of ‘principalities and powers’. The meaning of the individual words is not contested and the range of suggestions is well-known: civil and religious authorities, demonic powers, spiritual forces and angelic orders. Our objective is to answer the question why there is a reference to rulers, authorities, throne and lordships alongside the mention of the body of the church in a declaration about Christ and creation. One answer would be that the various powers are part of a new creation. If this is the case, Paul is configuring a common turn of speech for his own theological purposes. There are four problems with this answer. (1) It might be thought that an old and a new creation are different complete creations and that a new creation replaces any old creation. However, with Paul, the new creation happens within (and from) the old creation and Christ is the firstborn of that creation in being firstborn from the dead. The concept of the ‘new creation’ is about newly created men and women in Christ (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:10, 15; 3:9; 4:24; Col 3:10); it is not, ostensibly, about principalities and powers. Paul references creation generally (Rom 1:20, 25; 8:19-22; Eph 3:9; Col 1:23), as well as the detail of Genesis (1 Cor 11:9). For example,…if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed (khrucqe,ntoj) in all the creation (pa,sh| th/| kti,sei) under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Col 1:23 (NASB)Paul quotes Mark 16:15 here, “Go into all the world and preach (khru,xate) the gospel to all the creation (pa,sh| th/| kti,sei)”. The example shows that the scope of ‘all creation’ in Col 1:15 embraces all creation but only insofar as Paul defines its scope in terms of powers. Creative work in relation to Christ does not therefore have to be part of the new creation; it could be corresponding creative work.Another example of the general concept of creation is Rom 8:19-22,For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that all the creation has been groaning in travail together until now… Rom 8:19-22 (RSV revised)This is creation subject to Adamic condemnation and waiting in travail until ‘now’ – Paul’s day.(2) While Paul specifies the scope of ‘all things’ in terms of powers, there is the problem of saying when ‘rulers, authorities, thrones and lordships’ were created ‘in him’: For in him all things were created (evkti,sqh), both in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities. Col 1:16 (KJV revised)The aorist passive ‘were created’ begs the question of when these powers were created ‘in him’. The answer lies in Paul’s dispensational view of what was taking place in Christ and when this creative work was determined: He made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his kind intention which he purposed in him that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: Eph 1:9-10 (KJV revised)According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Eph 1:4 (KJV)For all the promises of God in him are ‘Yes!’, and in him ‘Amen!’, unto the glory of God by us. 2 Cor 1:20 (KJV revised)What was created in Christ in apostolic times was determined before the foundation of the world and it included the various powers of Col 1:16 as well as the gathering together of Jew and Gentile in one body. The purpose of God is centred in Christ and therefore the powers that were created for those times were also created in him. The intertextual key here is to trace what was in Christ and in him and determine when these things were decided – and the answer is – before the foundation of the world.There is a change of tense and prepositions in the next clause,All things have been created (e;ktistai) through him (diV auvtou/) and to him (eivj auvto.n). The shift from the aorist to the perfect tense establishes the meaning of the aorist: that all things were created in Christ before the foundation of world in the sense that they were determined (purposed, Eph 1:9-10; promised, 2 Cor 1:20; chosen, Eph 1:4), but now they have been created through him and to him (not ‘towards’, v. 20). In the gospel age it was not only the body of Christ that was created; the various powers were also brought under Christ – they worked for him. However, this does not make their creation part of the new creation of men and women in Christ.(3) While it is straightforward to understand the creation of men and women in Christ, we might ask why the various powers should also be regarded as in him? There is, after all, no baptism into Christ for the powers. Clause v. 16c answers this question. Christ is the firstborn of all creation, not only on account of his being the first born from the dead (v. 18c), but because (o[ti, v. 16c) various powers were created in him – this is the outworking of Ps 89:27 – that the firstborn would be higher than the kings of the earth. Subordinate powers derive their power from the king and this is expressed by their having their position in him.(4) Wright offers an objection to the above exegesis. He says, “it reduces evn auvtw/| and diV auvtou/ to terms simply of eivj auvto.n in a way which would scarcely be comprehensible to any first century reader acquainted with the Jewish background of Paul’s thought.”It is important to distinguish the sense of diV auvtou as ‘through him’ — this is not a causal sense, as if to say it is because of him something was done, (though this may be generally true). But rather the sense is that of an intermediary through whom something is done, or an instrument through which something is achieved — the Greek is used when describing those who believe through John the Baptist (John 1:7); when Peter says God did miracles through Jesus (Acts 2:22); when Paul questions whether he gained through any he sent to Corinth (2 Cor 12:17); when Paul describes Christ as an intermediary (Eph 2:18; and other verses making similar points); and these are just typical examples of the twenty verses in the NT which use this construction. This means that we ought to take note of the change of tense from the aorist, which is associated with ‘in him’, and is about purpose and intention, to the perfect which is associated with ‘through him’ and ‘to him’, and which reflects the reality of creating these powers. With Christ in heaven, Paul can say that all things have been created through him by God and they have been created to him. A first century reader would certainly know the distinction between God intending to do something and this being as good as done, and then God actually doing it (Rom 4:17) – so Wright’s objection seems misjudged. But we might ask why Christ is creating powers in the first place. The answer lies in the Great Commission. Jesus stated to his disciples that “All power (evxousi,a) is given unto me in heaven and earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations…” (Matt 28:18-19). If all power has been given to Christ, it follows that he would create powers in relation to the nations where the disciples will preach and with which they must interact and engage (see Section B). The commission explains Paul’s cosmology.In view of (1) - (4), we might ask whether there is any concept of a new creation in the first strophe. Here we can say that the second kai. sentence in vv. 17-18a introduces the body of the church. Thus, the first kai sentence introduces a further thought about Christ and all things, and the second kai sentence makes a corresponding statement about the church.And (kai.) he is above all (pro. pa,ntwn), and (kai.) in him all things hold together. And (kai.) he is the head of the body of the church. Christ is said to be ‘above’ all (pro. pa,ntwn) in terms of his position; this statement compares with his being ‘firstborn’ (prwto,tokoj) of all creation. The repetition is indicative of a refrain in a hymn. All things ‘hold together’ in him – the verb (suni,sthmi) makes more sense as ‘stand together’ in this passage (cf. Gen 40:4; Ps 39:1; Luke 9:32); the powers stand together in Christ. The potential misdirection here is that with the mention of the body of the church, we lose sight of the fact that the passage is about the powers which Paul refers to as ‘all things’. For example, we could try and include the powers in the body, so that the body is not just the church, but this misunderstands the flow of thought in the passage. The expression ‘all things’ is very common, but its scope is set by its context of use. In this passage, Paul defines his scope in terms of powers in v. 16 and then ties the passage together by recapitulating his point in v. 20.All ThingsIn Genesis, God created all things in heaven and earth and the sea (Acts 14:15; 17:24; Rev 4:11; 10:6). We also see that all things were placed under Adam (Gen 1:26; Ps 8:6). He was given dominion over all the beasts of the field (not the beasts of the earth), having had them first presented as companions (Gen 2:19; Ps 8:6-7). Adam was given all things to eat (vegetable/animal, Gen 1:26, 29). We have then the following:All things created to fill heaven, earth and sea.All creatures placed under a man, ordered by him.All foodstuffs given to a man to eat.Psalm 8 is an exposition of Genesis 1-2, and it acts as a filter for Paul’s usage of ‘all things’. He employs the expression from Psalm 8, and through this passage, the creation of Genesis 2 is brought as a backdrop into Col 1:15-20. For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all [things] under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, [and whatsoever] passeth through the paths of the seas. Ps 8:5-8 (KJV)For Paul, this position of Adam was a type for Christ who was also given dominion over all things. The things include rulers and authorities, thrones and lordships, and they may be visible or invisible, in heaven or on earth. This aspect of Christ’s work, is like Adam’s lordship over the beasts of the field, as illustrated in his naming of them.…far above all rule (avrch/j) and authority (evxousi,aj) and power and lordship, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come… Eph 1:21 (RSV revised) We have here the same collocation as in Col 1:16, traditionally translated ‘principalities and powers’. Christ is far above these powers, not only in the present apostolic age but in the age to come – the age of the kingdom. Commentators use the term ‘cosmic’ to describe Christ’s lordship over the powers. It is important, however, to note that these powers are not just part of Paul’s present but also those that will exist in the age to come.It is worth noting at this point that Eph 1:21 answers an objection by some that Col 1:15 cannot be an Adamic typology because Adam did no creating. The answer to this is simply that the type for the powers being created through Christ is the animals being named through Adam.The use of ‘all things’ in relation to the powers is straightforward and clearly based on the Adamic typology of dominion. What about the use of ‘all’ in relation to the body of Christ? That Christ is the firstborn from the dead ensures his position as firstborn of all creation, but the dead are his brothers and sisters who will be raised in their turn (Rom 8:29, ‘firstborn’, ‘image’ links with Col 1:15). So, there is a basis for the use of ‘all’ in relation to those ‘in Christ’ because there are many of them: Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that he himself might be preeminent among all (pa/sin).The second strophe (beginning v. 18b, ‘who’) introduces the ‘all’ who are the body of the church. The question arises as to whether vv. 18b-20 is just about the church.For in him he was pleased for all fulness to dwell And through him to reconcile all things (ta. pa,nta) to him, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things on the earth or things in the heavens.The thought here moves from the church which embodies the fulness of God to the reconciliation of all things through Christ. It might be thought that the fulness dwelt only in Christ, but this does not reflect the relationship of Christ to the body: “Which is his body, the fulness of him that fills all in all” (Eph 1:23; 3:19; cf. Col 2:9). This alludes to the dedicatory sacrifices of the tabernacle, after which the glory of the Lord filled the sanctuary (Exod 40:34).We should also note a contingency here: God was pleased for all fulness to dwell in him – the aorist euvdo,khsen (‘pleased’) suggests a time when the fulness of God came to dwell in him. If we think only of Christ, the intertextual link is with his baptism (Luke 3:22), and this identifies the Father as the one who is pleased. If we think also of his body, then we have a statement about God’s intention that all fulness should dwell in his body (before the foundation of the world). Moving on from v. 20, Paul goes on to talk about reconciliation in relation to believers, introducing the link with the expression ‘And you…yet now has he reconciled’ (v. 21), and this can mislead readers into interpreting ‘all things’ in v. 20 as a reference to believers. The mention of reconciliation in v. 20 does not embrace the church because Paul goes onto clarify that the ‘all things’ are those things on earth and in the heavens. Here, Paul reverses the order of these terms from v. 16 (as an inclusio), (‘the heavens and the earth’), and this secures the reference of ‘all things’ in v. 20 to be the powers of v. 16. We know that these are Jewish and Gentile powers because of Paul’s mention of ‘peace’ (see Section B). The work of reconciling these powers is based on Christ already having made peace between Jew and Gentile through the blood of the cross (Eph 2:14-18).This work of reconciliation was not completed in Paul’s day but, rather, God’s purpose was to reconcile the powers. Given Paul’s expectation of the imminent return of Christ to set up God’s kingdom, this work of reconciliation between the powers presently on earth and those yet to come is just his concomitant belief about what was going to happen. For Paul, but not for us, it was all happening there and then.Christological MonotheismThere isn’t an obvious monotheistic emphasis in Col 1:15-20; we only have to compare the passage with 1 Cor 8:6 to see this point. The language of ‘one and only’ is absent. The argument for the passage being an expression of christological monotheism is grounded in seeing a Wisdom Christology in the text. This is simply the observation that Paul relates Christ to creation in the same way as Wisdom in the Jewish Scriptures and Second Temple writings. This sees Wisdom as an agent in creation and an image of God. A consequence of this comparison is that Christ must be the incarnation of the Son (and pre-existed as such), otherwise, he cannot have been involved in creation (the comparison would be meaningless). Hence, to say that Christ is the image of God, is to express an intimate ‘Wisdom-like’ association with God such that Paul’s monotheism can be said to ‘christological’.At the risk of knocking down a straw man, the counter-argument to the above position is as follows: Col 1:15-20 is about a changing creation, a comparison between Christ and Adam, both the image of God. The terms of the change concern Christ’s position and status in relation to various powers. The comparison with Adam is with his dominion over creation. There is no comparison with Wisdom. Traditional Jewish monotheism is unaffected by the passage because a comparison with Adam does not affect monotheistic understanding, since he was also the image of God.It is how scholars interpret the passage that makes it a key text for Christological Monotheism. A straightforward reading of the passage shows that God the Father is the creator behind the reality that the passage depicts (v. 12): he is the one who is pleased for all fulness to dwell in Christ and his body; he is the one who created all things in Christ; and he has now created all things through Christ and to him; and he is the one who reconciles all things: “For in him he was pleased for all fulness to dwell…and through him to reconcile (avpokatalla,ssw) all things…”. Our inference, therefore, should be that the creator and the reconciler are one person—the Father, and that there is nothing in the passage that requires us to develop a Christological Monotheism. Wisdom ChristologyReading a ‘Wisdom Christology’ in Col 1:15-20 is common. Considering Christ as a mediator or the one through whom God creates does not of itself give you a ‘Wisdom Christology’. If some Jewish writers thought of Wisdom as an ‘agent’ in creation, saying the same of Christ, does not show that Paul is developing a deliberate contrast with Wisdom or that he is thinking of Christ as the ‘Wisdom of God’. Some examples of points made in favour of a ‘Wisdom’ interpretation are: Dunn says that Wisdom is spoken of “as created by God (Prov. 8:22; Sir. 1.4; 24.9) and as the agency through which God created (Prov. 3:19; Wisd. 8.4-6; Philo, Det. 54)”. Wright, developing the work of C. F. Burney, points to the use of avrch, in Prov 8:22 (LXX), and the use of eivkw,n in Wisd 7:26. Burney himself links the notion of ‘firstborn’ in Colossians with his translation of Prov 8:22-25, ‘The Lord begat me (ynnq) as the beginning of his way’ and ‘I was brought forth (ytllwx)’. We can evaluate these points as examples and this will give us an indication as to whether we should pursue the ‘wisdom’ line of interpretation. The priority that Paul gives to the Jewish Scriptures implies that were he to compare Christ to Wisdom, he would quote or allude to Proverbs 8, and scholars (e.g. Wright) have claimed that he does so in Col 1:15-20. We can use this text as a test case to decide whether there is a Wisdom Christology in Colossians 1.The Lord acquired me (ynnq), the beginning (tyvar) of his way (wkrd), the foremost (~dq) of his works, from of old (zam). I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning (varm), from the earliest times of the earth. When there were no depths, I was brought forth (ytllwx); when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I born (ytllwx) … Prov 8:22-25 (NASB revised)The translation of Prov 8:22 is contested. We justify our translation as follows:(1) The common verb (hnq) is mostly translated (80+ times) as something like ‘acquire, get, buy, purchase’; the KJV has ‘possess’, but this is a rare choice (e.g. Gen 14:19, 22; Ps 139:13). In Proverbs, getting wisdom is a common motif (Prov 1:5; 4:5, 7; 15:32; 16:6; 17:16; 18:15; 19:8; 20:14; 23:23) and the overwhelming use of the verb. The RSV or NET ‘created me’ is based on the LXX and the versions, and the hypothesis of a second root confirmed by Ugaritic. Cognate nouns and adjectives follow the majority usage of the verb in the Hebrew with appropriate variations; again, Ps 104:24 is treated differently by the RSV and NET. Possession would follow from acquisition, but ‘to create/make’ seems theologically motivated in the versions even with the hypothesis of a second root as backup. (2) The word tyvar is commonly given the range of meanings, ‘first, beginning, chief’. A parallel text, Job 40:19, has ‘tyvar of the ways of God’ for Behemoth, and this is variously translated ‘chief/first’, KJV, RSV, NASB, NET). This looks like a quotation and application of Prov 8:22. Furthermore, Burney notes that tyvar is being used substantively in apposition rather than adverbially ‘in the beginning’, and that tyvar without b is not used adverbially in the Hebrew Bible, although it is theoretically possible. Proverbs 4:7 uses tyvar and hnq, Wisdom is the principal thing (tyvar); therefore, get (hnq) wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Prov 4:7 (KJV)The beginning of wisdom is: acquire wisdom; and with all your acquiring, get understanding. Prov 4:7 (NASB)Wisdom is supreme—so acquire wisdom, and whatever you acquire, acquire understanding! Prov 4:7 (NET)The question is whether Wisdom considered herself the beginning or chief of God’s way. Given the self-evident reflection upon Genesis 1 in the poem, and the temporal use of tyvar in Gen 1:1, the best conclusion is that Wisdom did in fact consider herself to be the beginning of God’s way. (3) The parallel clauses, ‘the foremost of his works, from of old’, also have the same temporal sense; ~dq can be ‘before’ in time or place (Holladay) but, although most translations opt for ‘before’ here, the RSV tradition of translations opts for ‘first’. It is a common noun often found in collocations, but followed by a construct noun ‘of his works’(wyl'?['p.mi), something like ‘first/foremost’ is correct. The adverb ‘from of old’ (zam) qualifies the verb ‘to acquire’, as indicated by the verb ‘to set up’ being qualified by ‘from everlasting’, ‘from the beginning’, and ‘from the earliest times of the earth’.On this basis, (1) - (3), we have presented a translation of Prov 8:22-25 that is neutral as regards linking the text with Col 1:15-20; we haven’t sought to slant the translation to engineer a link, a charge which could be levelled at Burney. He uses vv. 23-24, ‘I was set up’ and ‘I was brought forth’ to infer ‘The Lord begat me’ for hnq, stretching the semantic domain of ‘to get’ (gat), stating “Now the idea of buying or acquiring from an outside source may clearly be excluded without argument, since Wisdom is certainly not pictured as something originally external to God.” This is fallacious reasoning as regards linguistics, but it highlights Burney’s theological motivation. If we set Colossians and Proverbs side-by-side, it doesn’t appear obvious that there is a direct quotation or allusion:The Lord acquired me, the beginning of his way, the foremost of his works, from of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I born… Prov 8:22-25 (NASB revised)Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation…Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead… Col 1:15-18 The only possible link here is with ‘beginning’, but in Colossians the beginning is the new creation, whereas in Proverbs it is before the Genesis creation; this is linking with Gen 1:1 and not Prov 8:22.However, even if there is no actual quotation or allusion of/to Prov 8:22-25, Burney presents an argument (updated by Wright) based, not on the actual meaning of tyvar in Prov 8:22, but the “different possible meanings of tyvarb in Genesis 1.1, made possible by the identification of tyvar with Wisdom implied in Proverbs 8.22”. This is an argument about Colossians alone and not Proverbs. The theoretical question in the philosophy of language is whether intertextual links can be established with possible as opposed to actual meaning; Wright and Burney cite no philosophical justification. If a possible meaning of tyvar is ‘firstborn’, this doesn’t make it the meaning instantiated in Proverbs. The same point applies to the possible meaning of ‘supreme, chief, foremost’ for tyvar; we can’t claim a link with pro. pa,ntwn (‘above all’) in Col 1:17 unless this meaning is in Proverbs. Likewise, for the other possible meaning of ‘head’ for tyvar — we can’t link this to Col 1:18a. To repeat, there is an actual link with one sense of tyvar (avrch,, ‘beginning’, v. 18c; Prov 8:22 (LXX), although the beginnings are different), but this doesn’t give you a basis for saying Paul is involving several possible senses of tyvar in his Greek. If Paul is involving possible senses of tyvar in his thoughts, these don’t contribute to any linkage with Proverbs 8 or Genesis 1, simply because of their absence in those texts. The upshot of this is that the argument doesn’t strengthen any claim that Paul is presenting a ‘wisdom’ Christology. There are obvious differences between Colossians 1 and Proverbs 8 and these preclude any meaningful quotation or allusion of Proverbs 8 in Colossians 1 on the part of the Spirit through Paul.(1) In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is related to the geography of the Genesis creation; in Colossians, Christ is only related to the creation of the powers. Moreover, Wisdom is not an agent in creation, but ‘with’ God. She is an agent in Prov 3:19 but, again, it is in relation to the geography of Genesis.(2) There is no pre-existence to Wisdom; she exists (continually) from the beginning (Prov 8:22); and she is a personification. The notion of pre-existence, as it is applied to Christ by theologians, pertains to the Son, an incarnation, and the birth of Jesus. (3) Wisdom is born, but she is not said to be ‘firstborn’ (tyvar in Proverbs is based on Gen 1:1 and does not carry the ‘firstborn’ sense). The notion of ‘firstborn from the dead’ in Colossians has no connection with the ‘birth’ of Wisdom (‘I was brought forth’, v. 24), because there are no later like-born comparable to Wisdom; there is a connection with Adam, who is a firstborn of later like-born.(4) Wisdom is not said to be an ‘image’ of God in Proverbs; and we cannot just draw in Wisd 7:26 (or Philo for that matter) and its use of ‘image’ for Wisdom (or the Logos) in order to secure an allusion to Wisdom in Proverbs. (i) For suppose the Wisdom of Solomon does quote and allude to Proverbs 8, its use of ‘image’ does not tie into Proverbs 8 and is its own contribution. (ii) If Paul alludes to (or quotes) Wisd 7:26, this doesn’t then necessarily take him to Proverbs; he may very well only be using the Wisdom of Solomon. (5) Proverbs 8:22-31 goes back earlier than Genesis because it envisages a time ‘from the earliest times of the earth’ and ‘from everlasting’ (v. 23). This is not the correct ‘time’ for a comparison with Christ as the firstborn from the dead, the beginning of a new creation.(6) The Genesis beginning is not the same beginning as Prov 8:22, and Colossians 1 alludes to the Genesis beginning (Gen 1:1, 26-28, ‘beginning’ ‘image’). The beginning in Proverbs 8 is ‘the beginning of his way’; in Genesis it is the beginning of a material creation. (7) The idea of ‘firstborn of all creation’ is about position and status, and not temporal priority. The connections between Genesis and Proverbs shows that ‘the beginning (tyvar) of his way’ is a temporal notion.(8) It is not clear that Wisdom can be said to be part of the material creation, even as ‘the foremost of God’s works’. On the other hand, Christ is part of a new creation as the firstborn from the dead.The above objections, (1) - (8), are pitched generally against any attempt to relate Wisdom in Prov 8:22-31 with Col 1:15-20. However, this is not to deny that Proverbs 8 and Genesis 1 were not (mis)read together as mutually explanatory in the Second Temple period. Our argument is that the Spirit through Paul is going straight to Genesis (not Proverbs 8).ConclusionWright lists three objections to a pre-existence reading of Col 1:15 – first, the present tense, ‘who is the image of the invisible God’ refers to ‘the Son’ from the point of view of Paul’s present; secondly, the concept of ‘image’ is essentially a human concept; and thirdly, God’s purpose is centred in a chosen man. These are powerful points. Wright’s objection to these points is that they make vv. 16-17 either “refer not to the original creation but to the new creation…Or they may refer to the original creation, but instead of claiming that Christ was active in mediating this creation at the beginning they may be suggesting simply that it was God’s intention, in creating the world, that it should find its fulfilment in him”. Wright’s ‘either-or’ is a false dilemma. As we have seen, vv. 16-17 refer to the (visible and invisible) powers of creation over which Jesus had a position of lordship (cf. 1 Cor 8:6); these verses are not about Christ mediating creation in ‘the beginning’ (Jesus is the beginning of the New Creation). Wright has been misled by a comparison with Wisdom, but such a comparison has not explained why the Spirit would quote or allude to Proverbs through the ‘interpretative development’ of such figures as Philo when Proverbs itself lacks the intertextual links to Colossians. Pre-existence is therefore imposed on the text (as well as on Wisdom), and we may suspect the influence of later church doctrine. Section BIntroductionW. Wink offers a broad definition of ‘principalities and powers’ – they are “the inner and outer aspects of any given manifestation of power.” His definition faces two ways in order to capture making a reference to actual concrete civil and religious authorities as well as something more abstract like the ‘structures’ of power. If we follow Wink, we could be more concrete or abstract in how we read the terms as this takes our fancy. This is straightforward enough; the exegetical question for us then is how we should handle anything in the text that apparently suggests something not on the earth, such as angels, demons, spirits and the heavenly places. Our method of approach is to pass comment on the text, but we don’t assume that NT writers are just reflecting their times; we allow for the possibility that they have a distinctive view that was taught throughout the churches by the apostles. This is a critical difference with other methods of approach to the texts, which seem to always hook the text to some socio-historical context or other, as if the NT church could not be doing something distinctive in their thinking across a broad range of ideas and not just their Christology.We have noted (above) four interpretations of ‘principalities and powers’ in Col 1:16: civil and religious authorities (viewed concretely or abstractly); angelic orders; demonic powers; and spiritual/social forces at work among people. These are well-trodden paths among commentators. Our proposal is a nuance of the interpretation ‘human powers’. Colossians 1:16 is about these powers (viewed concretely or abstractly) in Paul’s present and with regard to the future kingdom. Those seen on the earth obviously pertain to Paul’s present and those ‘in the heavens’ are of the future kingdom. We therefore eschew the more common suggestion that the invisible things in the heavens refers either to demonic powers or angelic orders. Given Paul’s expectation of an imminent return of Christ to set up the kingdom, his statement that the powers on earth and in the heavens have been created in Christ is part of that expectation. Paul’s use of the language of powers in this way constitutes a criticism of Jewish cosmological fables (Tit 1:14).On a first look, the text has some ambiguity,For in him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities. Col 1:16 (KJV revised)This could be saying that some powers are heavenly and some earthly, for example, thrones and lordships might pertain to heaven, while rulers and authorities might relate to earthly powers. Or it could be saying that all the powers listed are both earthly and heavenly at the same time depending on your perspective. Or it could be saying that all of these powers might be either heavenly or earthly, i.e. there might be heavenly thrones and different earthly thrones, and so on. Whatever we say, they ‘were created’ and this is not about assigning a new status or reconstituting existing powers but, foreseeing Christ, creating them in and around him.Thrones and LordshipsIf we examine texts where the terms, ‘rulers’, ‘authorities’, ‘thrones’ and ‘lordships’ occur separately, biblical and extra-biblical, up to and including the time of the NT writers, the majority of examples will relate to power exercised by human beings. This isn’t enough to settle Paul’s meaning because ‘rulers and authorities’ is a collocation that is used elsewhere in the NT and we need to determine whether, as such, it has a specialized use in Paul. The plural ‘thrones’ is used in respect of the kings of the earth (Luke 1:52), as well as the twelve (Luke 22:30). There are twenty-four thrones around the throne of God (Dan 7:9; Rev 4:4, 10). The most direct connection with Christ are the thrones of the twelve to which Christ appoints his disciples; these can be clearly said to have their authority ‘in him’. Paul may be referring to all or some of these kinds of throne; we need to look at other texts to decide this question. When we look at these texts, there are one or two points which can mislead a reader, but once these are properly analyzed, there is nothing really to overturn the majority reading of ‘thrones and lordships’ as human powers.The word ‘lordship’ is rare in the NT (4x), and it is used of a structure of government (2 Pet 2:10; Jude v. 8). Paul uses a similar four-fold expression of powers in Ephesians using ‘lordship’, …far above all rule and authority and power and lordship, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come… Eph 1:21 (RSV revised) Christ has been placed into a position of rule over rulers, authorities and lordships in the age in which Paul lived and with regard to the age to come. The point here for us is that Col 1:16 is not just a statement about Paul’s present; it is a prophetic statement about the future. Our proposal is that the pairing of ‘this age and the future age’ is matched in the pairing of ‘on the earth and in the heavens’.Men and women are baptised into Christ, but another way to be in him is to be gathered around him. There is a time in the future when all things will be gathered together in Christ,That in the administration of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things (ta. pa,nta) in Christ, both which are in the heavens, and which are on earth; even in him… Eph 1:10 (KJV revised)The description ‘things which are in the heavens’ is a way of talking about things then created for the future which will come from heaven and be instantiated on earth, for example, the New Jerusalem will come ‘from above’ (Gal 4:26). This means that we should read Col 1:16 as (partly) a prophetic statement of what has been established in, for and through Christ for the future kingdom on earth – the administration of ‘the fulness of times’. Paul makes a statement about ‘the things visible and the things invisible’; the invisible things concern things to come rather than angelic orders or demonic powers. Thrones and lordships have been created in Christ for the future because they will be gathered to him at that time. The language of the visible and the invisible is used for the present and the future and indicative of prophetic statements being made about ‘things unseen’:For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. 2 Cor 4:17-18 (RSV)The example of the unseen things that Paul gives is the resurrection body which was ‘in the heavens’ (2 Cor 5:1). This is what he was looking for – something ‘from heaven’ (2 Cor 5:2).The principle here is expressed by Paul in Romans,(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Rom 4:17 (KJV)Hence, there is a common connection between the language of seeing and prophecy. Faith is a conviction about things not seen (Heb 11:1) and illustrated in the example of Noah who was warned by God concerning things he as yet could not see (Heb 11:7). The prophets wanted to see the things concerning Christ (Matt 13:17) but only sometimes did they see his day (John 8:56).We conclude therefore that the future thrones created in Christ are most directly the twelve thrones that pertain to Israel, while the future lordships created in Christ pertain to the Gentiles. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the things in the heavens are ‘reconciled’ through Christ (v. 20) and reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in Christ is achieved through the cross.Rulers and AuthoritiesThe traditional topic of ‘principalities and powers’ now goes under the rubric of ‘rulers and authorities’. The collocation occurs as many as ten times in the NT writings, depending on how strict you are in defining the collocation (plural and singular). In order to identify these powers, we can start in Ephesians. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created (kti,santi) all things to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord… Eph 3:8-11 (KJV revised)This clearly places the rulers and authorities ‘in the heavenly places’ (evn toi/j evpourani,oij) and gives a role to the church in making the wisdom of God known to them. They are unlikely to be demonic powers or angelic orders (working from heaven or the desert) in a passage concerned with preaching to the Gentiles. The problem that commentators have with this passage is with the meaning of ‘the heavenly places’.These places are referred to by Christ when he says, “In my Father’s house are many abiding places…I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself” (John 14:2-3). These places (monh,) are where the Father and the Son ‘dwell’ with believers in their lives on earth, “we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). Insofar as believers on earth dwell in such places (in a temple, the body of Christ), they dwell with the Father and the Son. Thus, when rulers and authorities engage believers, they do so in the heavenly places.It might be thought that any rulers and authorities in the heavenly places must be literally in heaven and therefore angelic or demonic. Some commentators connect these powers to the organisation of the angels in the heavens. However, in respect of the new creation, the heavenly places are open to those in Christ,And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus… Eph 2:6 (KJV) cf. Eph 1:3, 20We may think of a Christian’s place with Christ in the heavenly places in an ideal sense; Christians are on earth, but they are also dwell with Christ in the heavenly places because Christ comes and dwells with them – they are part of his body, a temple. This opens up the interpretation that rulers and authorities come to the heavenly places when they engage believers – oppose them. The dichotomy that rulers and authorities are either of heaven (demons, Satan, angels) or of the earth (human government) is therefore false. What we have here in Paul is a concept of the church as the body of Christ, a temple, in which the Father and the Son dwell with believers and from which believers witness to Jew and Gentiles and ‘in’ which rulers and authorities engage believers. This interpretation explains Paul’s comment,…to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places … Eph 3:10 (KJV)It is possible to confuse ‘the heavenly places’ and ‘in the heavens’; Paul does not say that God has created all things in the heavenly places but ‘on the earth and in the heavens’. The difference is that this creative work is of the visible and invisible and it is the visible authorities on earth that may come to the heavenly places. Moreover, it is worth noting that the mystery of the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile was hidden from rulers and authorities in previous ages. It was the generation of Paul who were created by God to receive the revelation of that mystery, the return of Christ, and the establishment of the kingdom. This interpretation is obviously consistent with the use of the collocation in the plural in Luke 12:11 (“bring you before the rulers and authorities”) and Titus 3:1 (“be subject to rulers and authorities”). It is also consistent with Luke 20:20 where we have the singular, “they might deliver him unto the rule and authority of the governor”, but this might not be the same collocation. This leaves the other occurrences of the collocation in Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Corinthians to investigate.A counter-argument to the above interpretation is based on Eph 6:12, Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For it is not a wrestle against blood and flesh, but against rulers, against authorities, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual things of wickedness in the heavenly places. Eph 6:11-12 (KJV revised)Here it is argued that principalities and powers cannot be human authorities because Paul says ‘it is not a wrestle against blood and flesh’. Following this line of interpretation, one view is that Paul is not talking about human opponents; he is talking about the devil and demonic powers; another view is that Paul is talking about angelic orders. This last view is supported by the allusion in ‘wrestle’ (pa,lh, Arndt & Gingrich), which is to Jacob’s wrestling with the angel (Gen 32:24, LXX, palai,w). The contrast offered is pitched at the level of a non-human person, whether the devil, demon or an angel, and the various powers are then seen as diabolic or angelic.In English, ‘flesh and blood’ is a well-known idiom. In the Greek New Testament, the same idiom might embrace human nature (1 Cor 15:50) or refer to human beings (Matt 16:17; Gal 1:16). As an idiom for human beings, it carries a particular reference to the thinking of the flesh, and it stands in contrast to divine revelation. Jesus says, ‘Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, Simon’ (Matt 16:17) and Paul says, ‘To reveal his son in me…I conferred not with flesh and blood’. The Greek of Eph 6:12, along with that of Heb 2:14, is ‘blood and flesh’, and if it is an idiom, it is about the physical makeup of the human being; Heb 2:14 is clear in this regard. The wrestling that Christians do not do is physical; instead, their ‘standing against’ is a metaphorical wrestle against various powers where the wiles of the devil are being encountered.The contrast that Paul makes in ‘not a wrestle against blood and flesh’ is not one between human and non-human opponents, but one between the physical and the mental – the ‘wiles’ of the devil. That Paul is talking about thinking is further shown by his metaphor of ‘darkness’ and his reference to ‘spiritual things of wickedness’ (see below). The key to Eph 6:12 is the mention of ‘the wiles of the devil’ because Paul repeats the preposition ‘against’ (pro.j) from ‘against the wiles of the devil’ in ‘against rulers, against authorities, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual things of wickedness in the heavenly places’. Furthermore, the clause that opens v. 12 begins with o[ti and this shows that it is explanatory for ‘the wiles of the devil’. Paul is saying that ‘the wiles of devil’ can be seen in the behaviour of various powers and the spiritual things of wickedness. Ephesians 6:11-12 is about the wiles of various powers that the first century church encountered in their preaching; it is not literally about a devil or demons, nor about angels. The ‘wiles’ (h` meqodei,a) of the devil uses a word that occurs once elsewhere in Eph 4:14,…so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Eph 4:14 (RSV)This puts the thinking of men and particularly their religious doctrine to the foreground, and it allows the suggestion that ‘the devil’ of Eph 6:11 is a personification of the various kinds of opposition that Paul is encountering and which confront the ecclesias. Paul was saying that their fight was not a physical struggle but a spiritual one against various powers and their ideas. This is the best sense for ‘spiritual things of wickedness in heavenly places’. The term ‘spiritual things’ (ta. pneumatika.) is used by Paul elsewhere for the spiritual things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:13; 9:11; 14:1). Those in the heavenly places were those Jews who had infiltrated the church and who manifested the spiritual things of wickedness in their opposition to the gospel.Ephesians 6:12 has ‘world-rulers of this darkness’. The word for ‘world-rulers’ (tou.j kosmokra,toraj) is used variously in Greek texts of spirit beings or gods who control parts of the cosmos, human rulers or kings; in the singular, it is used of Satan and even the Angel of Death (Arndt & Gingrich). This data, coupled with a reading of ‘non-human’ for ‘not against blood and flesh’, leads commentators to posit demonic rulers as its reference in Eph 6:12. Given this general Greek usage, what use is Paul making when he relates ‘world-rulers’ to ‘this darkness’? He would seem to have something specific in mind because he uses the demonstrative ‘this’ for the darkness. What does Paul mean by ‘this darkness’? Paul’s commission to the Gentiles was to deliver them from darkness to light (Acts 26:17-18; cf. 1 Pet 2:9-10), and in his letters, there is an emphasis on the darkness of the Gentiles (e.g. Rom 2:19; 2 Cor 6:14). In Ephesians, he is addressing Gentiles (Eph 2:11; 3:1, 6, 8; 4:17) and the darkness is Gentile thinking (Eph 5:8, 11). The world-rulers of the time were the Romans, and this is the most natural reading of Paul’s phrase – they were ‘the world-rulers of this darkness’. If we break-up the compound word ‘world-ruler’, we find Paul using ‘world’ of the Gentiles in Ephesians (Eph 2:2, 11-12). There is a thematic connection between Eph 6:12 and Col 1:13, “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col 1:13). This is a quotation of Luke 22:53 which records Jesus referring to the hour of the ‘power of darkness’ from which he was not delivered. Jesus, however, had delivered Paul and his Gentile converts from the power of darkness. Their transfer to the kingdom of God shows that the power of darkness was itself a kingdom with rulers (the echo is to Abner who translated/delivered the kingdom of Saul to David, 2 Sam 3:10). Our conclusion therefore is that ‘this darkness’ is the ‘power of darkness’ embodied in the rule of Rome. Ephesians 6:12 is a catalogue of various kinds of opposition to the gospel: it refers, in order, to rulers and authorities, in which it agrees with Eph 3:8-11 (see above); it lists the world-rulers of the day (Rome); and it mentions those Jews who were engaged in a counter-reformation inside the church. The next ‘rulers and authorities’ text to consider is Col 2:14-17,Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Having put off from himself rulers and authorities, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Col 2:14-17 (KJV revised)The list of judgments are typical concerns of Judaizing Christians and Jews – meats, drinks, holy days and the Sabbath. The association of these concerns with ‘rulers and authorities’ goes to confirm the reading of Jewish rulers and authorities. The context here is clearly Jewish and the most natural reading of ‘rulers and authorities’ is as a reference to those who took part in the crucifixion of Christ – the relevant tenses are in the past (aorist, perfect).It might be thought that there is a tension or contradiction between Col 1:20 and 2:15, especially in some translations (e.g. ‘spoiled principalities and powers’ KJV; ‘disarmed the rulers and authorities’ NASB). Colossians 1:20 is about reconciliation of the powers through the cross and Col 2:15 is about disarming or spoiling them. The translation issue here is whether to treat the grammatical middle (avpekdusa,menoj) as an active sense (‘disarm/spoil’) or to retain the middle sense (‘put off/divest’).The context supports the middle sense. There is a clothing metaphor here in that Paul says Christ ‘divested himself’ of rulers and authorities (cf. Col 2:9 – ‘you have put off the old man’, avpekdu,omai). The related noun (avpe,kdusij) occurs in Col 2:11, “putting off the body of flesh”. The cross might have seemed a defeat for the nascent Christian movement, but for Paul it was a triumph over the very powers that sought to extinguish the gospel. What was nailed to the cross were the ordinances of the Law, which the Jewish rulers and authorities used against the church (‘against us’) in the sense that they promoted the Law’s necessity and sufficiency. What we have in Col 2:14-15 are two sentences describing the crucifixion with the actions of the judge and executioners transferred to Christ to show that he voluntarily submitted to the cross. The echo in nailing handwriting to the cross is to Pilate’s handwriting of the title of Christ in his judgement hall which was then put (nailed) on the cross (noted in the parenthesis of John 19:19-22). This title was in effect the legal charge against Christ (Luke 23:2). The echo in ‘openly (parrhsi,a|) triumphing’ is to the characteristic of Christ’s ministry: “I spoke openly (parrhsi,a|) to the world” (John 18:12), but the sense of ‘triumph’ is that of a triumphant procession (qriambeu,w, Arndt & Gingrich), and this is an allusion to Christ carrying his cross openly to Golgotha (John 19:17). This latter reading would be consistent with Gal 3:13, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree’” (RSV). The curse of the Law was upon the people – the handwriting of ordinances was against them. But Christ took away the power of the Law from the Jewish rulers and authoritiesAngelic OrdersThe two alternative interpretations to the one proposed here for ‘rulers and authorities’ are angelic orders and demonic powers. We have not argued against these interpretations in regard to our texts. It is too large a subject for this paper to argue that Paul does not have in mind Satan and demonic powers when he uses the expression ‘rulers and authorities’. We can, however, make a few points against the reading that Paul is thinking of angelic orders.(1) Romans 8:38-39, “For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” distinguishes angels from principalities (avrcai.). (2) Similarly, 1 Pet 3:22, “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities (evxousiw/n) and powers being made subject unto him.” makes the same distinction between angels and authorities.(3) When Col 2:14 says that Christ divested himself of rulers and authorities, this is unlikely to be a reference to angels, but to those who misused the Law, because the angels strengthened Christ during Gethsemane and were on hand (Matt 26:53; Luke 22:43). (4) Angels were interested in the prophesying in the church and the prophecies relating to the coming glory (1 Pet 1:12). This, however, is very different from what Paul states in Ephesians, that the fellowship of the mystery was hid in God with the intention that it be made manifest to rulers and authorities by the church (Eph 3:9-11). It is unlikely that such an intention related to the knowledge of the angels, but rather it relates mainly to God’s people (the usual recipients of revelation) and their relationship to the Gentiles in the gospel.(5) Angelic orders do not feature in the Jewish Scriptures; the terminology for such orders is based in Second Temple writings and later Rabbinical writings. If ‘rulers and authorities’ is not angelic, but Jewish, this does not mean that other ‘power’ terminology is not angelic.On the basis of (1) – (5), we reject the angelic interpretation of ‘principalities and powers’. The point here is that these terms are generally applied to cosmic and earthly powers in Second Temple writing. Our task has been to determine Paul’s application.ConclusionThe idea of ‘rulers, authorities, thrones, and lordships’ is a kingdom orientated idea. Since Paul has already mentioned the kingdom (Col 1:13; cf. 2 Sam 3:10 KJV), this idea is not out of place. A kingdom has a king, but it also has subordinate individuals and institutions that govern on behalf of the king (e.g. the thrones of the twelve tribes, Matt 19:28). A king creates these for his kingdom and in particular he creates them when his kingdom extends over subject peoples. This was true of David and Solomon and the former kingdom of God, and it is unlikely not to be true of the kingdom of Christ. However, the kingdom of God was not yet on earth, for Christ had not yet returned. Those ‘rulers, authorities, thrones, and lordships’ of the kingdom were not yet seen.We might ask why Christ has ‘rulers, authorities, thrones, and lordships’ in Paul’s day, but this is just a consequence of “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt 28:18) and “the Most-High rules in the kingdom of men” (Dan 4:32). All rule and dominion had been given to the Son, all power and authority, the power to create and the power to destroy, and the final judgement. In all these situations the Lord Jesus Christ had the role and position of king. Ephesians 1 talks of all things already put under the feet of Christ, and Colossians 1 talks of all things having been created in Christ, but 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that all things are not subdued unto Christ until the last enemy is destroyed (1?Cor 15:24-28). As with Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1, 1 Corinthians 15 has the same ideas: resurrection, principalities, powers, and might:...Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end...when he shall have put down all rule (pa/san avrch.n) and all authority (pa/san evxousi,an) and all might... 1?Cor 15:23-24Christ was (is) the firstborn of all creation, but here the figure is that of the firstfruits of a harvest. Paul is thinking of the last days when the kingdom is delivered up to the Father. The collocation ‘rulers and authorities’ is not used, but the same words with ‘all’. There is little doubt that this makes the scope universal: all the human rulers and authorities and all the might that stands arraigned against Christ will be put down and then Christ will hand over the kingdom to the Father.People generally justify themselves; this is as true of the natural as it is of the spiritual. People justify their spiritual choices in terms of their beliefs and behaviour. They do this against other churches but also within their church. Inside the ecclesia, they may label others who do not share their particular balance of the spiritual life. They might say, ‘So and so is too much this or that way …’ and they choose a particular quality to criticize. This may engender a response and a counter-criticism from the other person, and so it goes on. It’s perhaps worse if this is done in writing on the Internet or in magazines rather than in the normal face-to-face gossip at the meeting. The point here is that promoting your own spiritual balance in the criticism of others can be rather self-indulgent and prideful, whether from the platform or writing in a magazine. Why does it happen like this? One reason is that it comes from a feeling of superiority to others in some spiritual matter such as ‘works’ or ‘knowledge’. Those who focus on works can criticize those who spend more time on study and vice-versa, and each can condemn the other as self-indulgent. What’s to be done? The thing to do is to praise the positive in others and another is to accept the criticism of others quietly. AP ColumnistsBenedict KentExegesis/AnalysisMatt 13:44-52 (Concluded)Form criticism attempts to reconstruct the life settings that produce biblical texts. Most scholars date Matthew’s gospel between 80-90 CE, written to a Jewish Christian audience, initially in Palestine (Galilee or Antioch) where the first Jewish Christian became established. Matthew’s community would have been familiar both with the stories and teachings of Jesus, and with the practice of parabolic teaching (material from the rhetoricians demonstrates the popularity of parables in the Greco-Roman world) making it necessary to consider the purpose of Matthew 13 for an audience who are already disciples of Jesus. The division theme in 13.44-52 and its immediate co-text suggests two main purposes. Firstly, it is an explanation of the limited success of Jesus’ ministry. The prophetic nature of the parables plus the Old Testament quotations which predict the deafness of Israel (13.15, 18-23) function to explain the lack of receptiveness on the part of the crowds. The parables of The Wheat and the Tares and of The Dragnet also show that lack of receptivity doesn’t come from God but from human sinfulness and Satan’s activity (13.19, 24-30). Secondly, for Matthew’s Christian audience who are following the gospel story, it affirms inclusion into God’s family. By bringing the audience into the familial space of the house with Jesus and the disciples (13.36), the text is suggesting that the audience too is invited into the household of Jesus and they too are invited to receive the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (13.34-35). This emphasis on inclusion is supported by W. Carter who argues that Matthew is written to Jewish Christians after splitting from the synagogues. Such an audience would affirm the need for reassurance if they had been rejected by Judaism, the historical family of God. Matthew’s emphasis on kinship throughout the gospel also supports this increasing insider’s/outsider’s dichotomy. Matthew’s frequent references to Jesus’ family suggests that family ties and heritage are significant. However, when Jesus appears to reject his natural family in 12.46-50, he redefines what it means to be part of the family of the Messiah, announcing a kinship based on obedience to God. As both the disciples within the narrative and Matthew’s intended readers enter the house in 13.43-52, they are figuratively invited into the household of God and established with special privilege. Matthew 13.11 introduces the theme of disclosure of mysteries which denotes the revelation of God’s ways and purposes. Jesus himself affirmed that it is not the ‘wise and learned’ who are receiving the revelation of the kingdom, but the common people, or the ‘little children’ (11.25). This is then repeated directly to his disciples in 13.11-12, 16-17 and is present as blessing to those who hear and accept. As well as this, Matthew has stated that many are called to the gospel but few will accept it (7.14, 11.24, 13.18-23). These factors function to create a dichotomy between those people who reject Jesus and those who accept him, between outsiders and insiders. The culmination of these factors suggest that for both the disciples within the narrative, and Matthew’s intended audience, the invitation to follow Jesus into the private setting of the house would affirm their status as insiders, inciting eagerness and anticipation for the revelation to come. The message of the parables in 13.43-52 suggests that the purpose has shifted. Whilst the parables of the previous pericopes emphasise the divisive and hidden nature of the kingdom 13.43-52 teaches the need for radical discipleship, diminishing the confidence that being included as an insider may bring. Whilst Matthew’s intended audience wouldn’t have needed convincing of the kingdom’s value, they may have needed encouragement to make radical sacrifices in their new Christian lives. To do this, the parables in 13.44-52 portray examples of human action and invite the audience to do likewise. Whilst the narrative lead-up, setting and genre of 13.44-52 have all contributed to establishing a theme of insider/outsider dichotomy, the four parables of 44-52 undermine any sense of comfortableness or ease with challenging teachings on sacrificial discipleship. Matthew arranges a final set of parables renewing the formula, ‘the kingdom of heaven is like […]’ and continuing the form of the previous parables.The parable of the Treasure and the Pearl are thematically parallel to the preceding pair of parables, the Mustard Seed and the Leaven. Both pairs of parables teach the apparently hidden and small nature of the kingdom movement at present. The repeated use of kryptein (hidden) further associates the kingdom with the apocalyptic disclosure of mystery, repeating the explicit reference in 13.35. However, although the Treasure and the Pearl are paired with the Mustard Seed and the Leaven they also have an extra dimension and a different nuance. The imagery of finding hidden treasure alludes to Prov 2.3 which likens gaining Wisdom or insight to finding hidden treasure. Jesus’ parable implies that the kingdom of heaven is the true wisdom and is of ultimate value as shown by the protagonist’s willingness to ‘sell all that he has’ to acquire it. This emphasis on the cost for the disciple functions to dramatically counter and challenge any privileged expectation or self-importance that the disciples and readers may feel by their inclusion in Jesus’ inner circle. The parable of the Pearl is very similar to the Treasure. The parable repeats the central theme that the protagonist had to have ‘sold all he had’ to acquire the treasured object. This variation indicates to the intended audience (who may have been recent converts), that whether they discovered the gospel by accident, or whether they were seeking it, the cost is the same. The ‘pearl’ in the parable is closely related to the treasure of the parables of the Treasure and the Householder. Where Matthew uses pearl, the LXX and the Hebrew refers to jewels in general. This supports the reading that the parables in 13.44-52 are mostly grouped together by their share treasure and cost theme. The parable of the Dragnet is very different to the other parables and does not sit so easily within the theme of radical discipleship. However, it does challenge those who perceive themselves to be 'insiders'. The parable and its interpretation use imagery characteristic of apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic literature is suggested to be the primary background to the parable but the image of the net is also used to symbolise judgement in passages of the Old Testament such as Hab 1.13-17. As well as warning of judgement, the imagery of the net functions to reinforce the disciples’ role as fishers of people. ‘All kinds of fish’ (13.47), reminds Matthew’s intended audience that God’s kingdom is open to all and encourages them to persevere with their preaching ministry. Like the Treasure and Pearl parables, the Dragnet mirrors the previous pericope by acting as a parallel to the parable of the Wheat and the Tares (13.24-30). But whereas this parable emphasises perseverance for the righteous, the Dragnet focuses on eschatological punishment for the ‘bad’ (13.48). These two parables of judgement frame the parables of the Treasure and the Pearl and counteract the joy of finding the kingdom with a warning against ignoring its requirement of radical allegiance. The Dragnet is the only parable in this pericope that has a nimshal (interpretation), mirroring the structure of the previous two pericopes (13.18-23, 37-43). In this nimshal Jesus interprets the parable using further apocalyptic imagery of angels and fire (13.49-50). In using symbolic imagery in the interpretation Matthew’s Jesus lessens the metaphorical distance between the parable and the audience. This adds force to his warning against lax discipleship in pursuit of the kingdom of heaven. The Parable of the Householder is the final parable and the climax of the discourse. It is framed within a conversation about understanding, between Jesus and the disciples. Understanding the parables is the ultimate assessment of whether the audience is included in the community of the kingdom of heaven. However, the parable of the Householder teaches that true understanding of the kingdom results in radical sacrifice. Philips translation of the passage reveals a person clearing out their storehouse, working from the outside in ‘to make way for something else.’ The parable seems to allude to Prov 8.10-11 which instructs that wisdom is more valuable than any world treasure. Snodgrass argues that the repetition of treasures in 13.52 assists oral conveyance but the two parables are not related. The narrative progression of the pericope suggesting that the kingdom requires lucrative investment is a unifying theme. In the same way that the parable of the Pearl assumes some of the narrative features of the parable of the Treasure (such as the joy of finding the kingdom), so the Householder assumes the pretext of having found the treasure kingdom. The narrative of the parable focuses on the behavior of the protagonist provoked by the discovery of the kingdom. The parable provides closure and conclusion to the teaching discourse by acting as an inclusio with the parable of the Sower. Like the Sower, the Householder doesn’t strictly begin with the formula ‘the kingdom of heaven is like’. As the Sower portrays the different responses to the kingdom of heaven, so the Householder reflects upon the responsibility of those ‘good soils’ in whom the seed has been sown. Matthew’s intended audience become ‘scribes discipled for the kingdom of heaven’ by participating in the narrative. They too are challenged by the responsibility of ‘every scribe’ to make radical sacrifices. Whilst the disciple’s affirmation of understanding concludes the discourse, the Householder is the final saying and leaves the image in the mind of the audience. In arranging this teaching of absolute commitment to the kingdom as the climax to this teaching discourse, Matthew continues to drive the theme consistently through his gospel challenging his audience to live more radical, sacrificial lives in their discipleship of the kingdom of heaven.HistoryAndrew WilsonHow did the Middle - Eastern world of c.1900 become the Middle – Eastern World of post-1945?There is a good deal of fitting together of the understanding of events, and the ideas inherent within them, to begin to understand what went on during this time period and answer our question. Here are some important jig-saw pieces, making up this picture: -(a) The McMahon Correspondence [ July 1915 – January, 1916]This ‘correspondence’, between Sir Henry McMahon [1862-1949] and the Sharif Hussein [1854 - 1931] of Mecca, preceded the Balfour Declaration.The McMahon Correspondence, additionally, overlapped the diplomacy of its more famous successor, in substance, in that significant portions of territory, largely in the former Ottoman Empire, were thereby promised, by Britain, to the Arabs, as recompense for Arab fighting for the Allies against the Ottoman Empire, during WWI.The substance of McMahon was, at the time, kept secret from third parties. Even had this not been so, its clauses were so ‘diplomatically’ phrased1 as to require skilful interpretation, to penetrate. It became clear later that, in practice, the Arabs’ understanding of McMahon ran wholly contrary to Jewish understanding of the Balfour Declaration, which appeared to Jews to be promising confusingly similar portions of former Ottoman territory to the Jews! This matter is certainly a major contributory factor to today’s poor international understanding between Israel and the Arabs. Put bluntly, Allied diplomatic duplicity – especially British - partly led to the modern Middle East problem.(b)The Balfour Declaration [ Friday, 2nd November, 1917 ]This Declaration was originally a private letter to Lord Walter Rothschild from Arthur Balfour, then British Foreign Secretary. Rothschild, a prominent academic, and former British Conservative MP, was a Zionist, a close friend of Dr. Chaim Weizmann [see Summer EJ], and a leading member of British Jewry. The ‘Declaration’ was made at a time when Britain was not able to promise a National Homeland to the Jewish people, or to anyone else – since Jerusalem, and the key territory around it, was still, then, in the hands of the Ottoman Empire. This circumstance applied until Jerusalem was captured by the then ‘General’ Edmund Allenby on Tuesday, December 11th, 1917, over one month after the ‘Declaration’ had promised that territory to the Jewish people.(c)The Sykes-Picot Agreement [May, 1916 ]This was a secret agreement,2 tying up, to the satisfaction of Britain and France, the post-war disposition of key areas of territory in the Middle East. It was made during WWI, for application in the subsequent Versailles group of Peace Treaties [1918 – 1925].3 It was the outcome of negotiations carried out between Sir Mark Sykes [1879 – 1919] and Monsieur Francois Georges-Picot [1870 – 1951]. Sykes was a Yorkshire Conservative grandee, a Colonel in the British Army, a British MP, and friend of Balfour. By WWI, he had become, for the British Cabinet, the ‘go to’ expert on all things Turkish, Ottoman and Middle-Eastern.Picot, a lawyer by training and profession, and a lifelong diplomat, was recalled by the French government to Paris from the Middle East during World War I, appointed High Commissioner in Palestine and Syria, between 1917 and 1919, and Minister Plenipotentiary in 1919.Sykes and Picot, on behalf of their respective governments, formulated the agreement which bears their name, and which was highly significant in the shaping of the Middle East of today. Sykes-Picot was especially important, with regards to the frontiers of Iraq and Syria. It is sometimes, wrongly, claimed Sykes-Picot lies at the heart of the Arab-Israeli issue; this was already being shaped, via McMahon. So much is this misperception the case, that, when ISIL was founded, in 1999, its Twitter address was #SykesPicotOver!(d)Field-Marshall Edmund Allenby [1861-1936]As a middle-ranking officer - a ‘temporary Lieutenant-general’ - Allenby proved, on the Western Front, not to be a commander to the taste of the then C-in-C of the Western Front, Earl Haig.Allenby, though thereafter promoted to full General, was returned to England, to a No Man’s Land, within Administration.A most interesting example of an ‘Historical Undesigned Coincidence’ occurred at that point. The British Liberal politician, David Lloyd-George, was appointed PM in 1916. ‘L-G’ wanted [and got!] significant changes within the War Office, in the field of battle, and, in particular, wanted a ‘more dashing' presence in the Middle East. Lloyd-George desired that Great Britain should have a leader who could conduct the Allied War-effort on the Eastern Front with energy, Sir Archibald Murray, i/c the British Expeditionary Force until then was, in L-G’s opinion, not that presence, whilst Allenby [already1 nicknamed ‘The Bull’] might well be.Thus, an exchange was effected: the pliant Murray, promoted, was made General Officer Commanding-in-Chief [Aldershot Command], immediately subordinate to Haig, who was delighted to have a pliant subordinate; Allenby replaced Murray i/c the BEF, to the great satisfaction of Lloyd-George, the British Prime Minister, who had his cavalier in place. More ‘cavaliers’ were to follow.Allenby’s rapid string of successes in the Allied Middle-East Campaign, thereafter, and his ‘humble entry’ into Jerusalem,2 are largely a matter of public record. Although I've enclosed personal information below, textbook photographs, illustrating Allenby doing as I have indicated, are not uncommon. Indeed, the Imperial War Museum3 has unearthed newsreel footage of the event, shot by a British soldier in December, 1917.Allenby, often referred to by his rank of 1917, as ‘General Allenby’, was, in fact, honoured by his country, post war, in a number of ways: he was made up to Field Marshall Allenby on 31 July 1919, and was created Viscount Allenby of Megiddo and Felixstowe, on 7 October of that year. He remained in the Middle East as High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan, until 1925, when he retired from active service.(e)T. E. Lawrence [1888-1935]Major T. E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia, a British Army Officer became fluent in Arabic4 having been interested from his youth in archaeology, and going, as a teenager, on an extensive walking-tour of Syria in pursuit of this interest. He also acted as a fieldwork assistant to a number of archaeologists, including Sir Leonard Woolley, the Biblical archaeologist. By dint of his wide network of Middle-Eastern contacts, deriving from his archaeological work, and his befriending of many Arabs, winning their trust and support, he was asked by the Allies to work inside German-Ottoman lines during World War I.Lawrence was able to persuade his Arab friends, particularly the Emir Faisal I of Iraq, and King Abdullah I of Jordan, to join the Allies against the Ottoman Turks, during the First World War. He became disaffected with the British cause, returning home a ‘broken man’,5 when told by Allenby, in late 1918, that his plan to enthrone his protégé, Feisal, on the throne of Syria, under British protection, thus ‘biffing the French out of all hope of Syria’, was, due to Sykes-Picot, to be subordinated to Syria’s being under French suzerainty, leaving Feisal no real power.Lawrence’s success with the Arab uprising needs no elaboration here, except to say that, as the ‘practical arm’ of the McMahon diplomatic putsch, his work forms a further piece in the ‘Historical Jigsaw’ before us, and to add that Lawrence worked hand-in-glove in fighting the Ottomans with General Allenby during this War, if not entirely in the diplomacy afterwards. He also worked hand-in-glove with Gertrude Bell in progressing the politico-diplomatic outcomes in the Middle east, after the War.6(f)Gertrude Bell [1868 – 1926]Bell was a highly unusual woman – a polymath in any age, exceptionally so in the 19th /20th centuries, given the relative suppression of women, in comparison with roles considered as ‘normal’ in today’s world. She was an academic historian, from Newcastle-On-Tyne, who obtained a first at Oxford [within 2 years]; and an archaeologist, on the one hand, and a British Imperial political officer and a spy, on the other.Along with T. E. Lawrence, she set up, on Britain’s behalf, the Hashemite dynasties in both Iraq and Jordan, and manipulated events re-the outworking of the peace-treaties, in practice, after the War. In terms of this story, Bell played an important, though facilitatory, role; to that extent, she was a minor figure in the drama which unfolded.(g)Major-General Orde Wingate [1903-1944]Wingate was a ‘distant cousin’ of Lawrence of Arabia.1 He came from a family of Plymouth Brethren, and, as such, was steeped in the study of, and consequent detailed awareness of, Biblical History. Wingate was convinced, biblically, of the providential shaping of Jewish history, [i.e. that their return to Eretz Yisrael, the land of their ancestors was providentially-engineered], helped the Palmach, during the 1930s. Due to his studies of biblical warriors of Old Testament times, especially closely studying the strategies and tactics of Gideon in the book of Judges, Wingate gleaned a great deal of knowledge about those strategies and tactics most likely to be effective in that specific environment, and he put his findings at the disposal of the nascent Jewish State.Infuriating some of his superiors, with his ‘pro-Jewish bias’,2 Wingate was moved by the Army from the Middle East to Ethiopia and then to South-East Asia, and, in fact, banned from Palestine in toto. In the former area, Wingate’s unorthodox guerrilla tactics were carried out by specially-trained troops, known, with an eye to a Biblical predecessor, as the ‘Gideon Force’. In Burma, also during World War II, his work in establishing, in the form of the Chindits, an early version of the SAS, he was successful, and, in using his Gurkha troops, and others, by parachute drop behind enemy lines, in the 1940s, in driving back the Japanese in Burma. His early death – in a USAAF plane-crash over north-eastern India, returning from a visit to Burma, to assess the level of success of the Chindits operations there, – led to the transfer, for a few months, of Chindits’ operations to the leadership of Lieutenant-General W. D. A. Letaigne, and, later, of the acerbic U.S. General, Joseph Stilwell.3I have already referred to two of my Keele Professors having Jewish backgrounds. It was not until much later that I discovered that a third academic influence on me at Keele had also been Jewish: for some months, I found myself in Professor P. J. V. Rolo’s group of tutees. Paul was very knowledgeable about British and European diplomacy in Victorian times, during World War I, and in the subsequent battery of peace-treaties, and was known to the 1960s Student Body at Keele as the author of the textbook on George Canning, brilliant British Foreign Secretary and sometime British Prime Minister. Paul Rolo [1917 – 1992], I later discovered, was brought up, in a wealthy Sephardic Jew Banking family in Cairo, and worked in the part of British Intelligence now known as MI6, during WWII.The bodies, later to be known as MI5 and MI6 were founded in 1909 by Sir Vernon Kell and Sir George Mansfield Smith-Cumming, respectively, as the Secret Service Bureau [MI5] and the Secret Intelligence Service [SIS, later MI6]. From the start, MI5 dealt with domestic British security-intelligence, and MI6 with issues relating to foreign intelligence. Professor Rolo worked for the SIS, or, in modern money, MI6.From Prof. Rolo, too, I learned of the duplicity of British diplomacy, in WWI, in which Britain promised, via the McMahon Correspondence, effectively, the same pieces of oriental real-estate to Arab nationalists it was, within 18 months, in the Balfour Declaration, to promise to their Zionist counterparts. (g)Georg Antonius and his Arab Awakening [1938]Professor Paul Rolo knew the world of Arabs, and Arab nationalism inside out, as well as the world of International Diplomacy.As Paul's student, I read Georg Antonius's The Arab Awakening [1938], the seminal work on what was, from 2010 in Tunisia, to be known as The Arab Spring. Professor Rolo pointed out, vis-a-vis my unbridled student-zeal, that Antonius was describing things at their most seminal: these were tiny groups of Arab intellectuals, meeting, huddled, in the garrets of back-street apartments, and certainly not any kind of mass-movement.Nonetheless, Antonius's title holds true – it was indeed the Arab Awakening he had been describing. Antonius traced the awakening back to Muhammad Ali Pasha [1769 - 1849] and it occurred at the very same time that the above events, regarding the re-establishment of Israel in their own land happened. Of course, those advances of the Jewish cause would fuel the fires of need for independence for the Arab peoples, long held down by the alien Turkish influence of Ottoman supremacy.The ottomans increased this feeling of desire for independence, for revenge, to be rid of alien influences, by seeking to put down savagely, not only what came to be known as the Arab Revolt [1916 – 1918], but also any leanings towards independence anywhere. Thus came about the ‘Armenian Massacres’ [1915-1917], the ‘Assyrian Genocide’ [1914-1923], and the ‘Pontic Genocide’, [1913-1923].(h)In ConclusionThe above jockeying of persons, boundaries, countries, and alliances has, therefore, produced a setting of the stage for a further Act in the Play of the Human Drama, as follows: -[I]The Stage-SetPeace-negotiations, peace-treaties and Alliances [complete with the relevant diplomatic duplicity] provided the context for the Play, against a Back-drop of two World Wars, and the concomitant redrafting of many national boundary-lines, resulting in an aggregation of perceived rightful inheritances, and bitterly-wronged grievances, providing an explosive admixture[II]The ActorsThe individuals, both major and minor, acting out their roles on the International Stage included, as it absolutely had to, an array of highly unusually-gifted, and unusual figures – whom some would describe as ‘cavalier’, others, even, ‘buccaneer’...but outstanding, even extraordinary, figures, they certainly were. These actors – many with a full awareness of the roles of the others on stage, some with an awareness of their place within the Plot, even whilst they were playing out their own parts.[III]The Plot: ‘Providence’ or ‘Pot-luck’?By this heading is meant that which brought about the roles the Actors on the Stage would play – their [positive] relationships with relevant Prime Ministers – Allenby with Lloyd-George, Wingate with Churchill – along with a Full Supporting Cast of experts, such as Gertrude Bell, would be described by some commentators as ‘Chance’, and by others as ‘Divine Providence’. Overall, it is clear that the steering of events went in one direction – viz. Towards the facilitating, establishment and nurturing of the modern state of Israel. Thus, for instance, Balfour’s ‘Declaration’ came to be accorded superiority over both McMahon and Sykes-Picot, especially in the context of the Holocaust. Later, Wingate, at the behest of Churchill, was positioned in a role in which he was able to assist the nascent Jewish State against its detractors, and would-be demolishers, notably including Mohammed Amin al-Husseini [1897 - 1974], the second Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who, in the 1930s, supported both fascists and Nazis.AddendumI had had thoughts of including all of these jigsaw pieces this time, but I found space too limited to squeeze them in here. So it a matter for future reference. It includes the understanding of each of the following separately, their development and inter-relationships: -[a] The Romanov Dynasty [1613 - 1917]'s invention of the pogrom & the influence thereof.[a1] The siege of Sidney Street, London [1911].[b] Captain Alfred Dreyfus, and the Dreyfus affaire [1894 - 1906] in France.[b1] Theodore Herzl [1860 - 1904], Austrian newspaper reporter, Jew, organiser & Zionism [1890 on].[c] Lloyd-George wartime British PM [1916 - 1922], & the 'Gunpowder Plot' of WWI.[c1 Dr. Chaim Weizmann [1874 – 1952], academic, Jewish nationalist, & Israeli President. [d] The 1930s Jewish cultural hegemony in Europe, and the effects upon it of Nazism.GenderWhat roles could a woman perform? A Discussion between T. Gaston and A. PerryWhat roles could a woman perform?T. GastonIntroductionOur assumptions about biblical roles are often set within a masculine frame. We imagine priests as men, prophets as men, apostles as men. Yet just because we imagine something to be so, does not mean that it is so. Standing in for a Gender columnist, in this column, I want to explore what the Bible actually has to say about gender restrictions on specific roles in both Old and New Testaments. The primary question is, are there explicit gender restrictions for these roles? The secondary question is, are there examples of women performing these roles? If the answer to the former question is “No” and to the latter “Yes” then this should challenge our assumptions about the gender breakdown of these roles and all roles. Methodological ConsiderationsIt is worth noting that this article will make no reference to 1 Tim 2:9-15. For some this may seem like a critical methodological flaw. Surely, they will argue, if 1 Tim 2:9-15 prescribes certain roles for men and certain roles for women as a principle rooted in creation then case closed, no further examination needed. That may be so, but in response I would make three points. Firstly, I think it can be argued (and indeed, I have so argued) that on careful reading of the text 1 Tim 2:9-15 does no such thing. Secondly, it would be, at the very least, a little odd if the principle purported to be found in 1 Tim 2:9-15 was not echoed in role descriptions by explicit gender restrictions. Thirdly, if we find examples of women performing roles that according to this purported principle they should not be performing, and if they are commended rather than condemned for so doing, then that leaves us with an inconsistency. Inconsistencies are usually good indicators that we have made an interpretative misstep. For the purposes of this article, I am interested in what the Bible actually says about these roles, not what our presuppositions think it should say. One of the key methodological issues for the question of gender roles in the Bible is the significance of the gender of the pronouns used. One might assume that a masculine pronoun is clear indication of a masculine role but this would be misleading. Take, for example, the Law of the Nazirite. Either a man or a woman could take such a vow (Num 6:2), but all the prescriptions relating to the vow are given with a masculine pronoun. This is indicative of the practice of defaulting to masculine in cases where both genders are in view. We find similar problems with plural nouns, where the masculine would be used for a group of mixed gender. Now, of course, the fact that a pronoun or plural noun might be used of groups including women is not, of itself, evidence that the word is being used in that way. This would be an argument from silence. The silence of the text on certain issues is another methodological problem. Arguments from silence are generally inappropriate because the absence of evidence might be consistent with any number of scenarios. However, sometimes silence is telling. For instance, a prescription that is not explicitly stated is not a prescription at all. Therefore, when considering what was permissible under a given circumstance, silence can be very telling. Now, just because we can find no prescription against women performing a certain role, this is not evidence that any did perform such a role. Yet this is largely irrelevant, since the question at hand is not what women did do but what was it permissible for them to do (permissible in the eyes of God, not in the eyes of the society in which they were living). In patriarchal societies, like those of the ANE, that men did most of the prominent roles is historically trivial, yet this tells us nothing about God’s attitude towards such a gender split. Could a woman be a priest?The Levitical priesthood is mentioned as early as Exodus 19 (i.e. Israel at Mount Sinai), but most of the regulations for priests come in Leviticus. In describing the garments of the priesthood, Exodus 28 introduces the idea that it would be Aaron and his sons who would serve the Lord as priests (vv. 1, 3, 4, 41; cf. Exod 31:10; 35:19; 39:41) and this phrase, “Aaron and his sons”, is thereafter repeatedly used with reference to the priesthood and as synonym for priests (e.g. Lev 1:5). Deuteronomy does use the phrase “the sons of Levi” is reference to the priests (Deut 21:5) and elsewhere the uses the phrase “Levitical priests” (Deut 17:9; 24:8; 27:9) but this seems to refer to the same group of people. The use of the term “sons” might be taken to imply a male-only role but given that the same Hebrew term would be used to refer to mixed group of sons and daughters (i.e. the same word could be translated “children”), this term is not as decisive as it may first seem. Disambiguation is question of context. In describing the consecration of the priests and his garments, Exodus 29 introduces the hereditary element of the priesthood (vv. 29-30; cf. Lev 6:22; 16:32). These verses seem to refer only to role of high priest, which was a monarchical role and seems to have passed from oldest son to oldest son, as with property rights. We do have clear examples of the high priesthood passing from father to son (Aaron to Eleazar; Ahimelech to Abiathar) and no examples of the high priesthood passing from father to daughter. With regards to the inheritance of property, Numbers includes case law regarding the estate of Zelophehad, which passed to his daughters (Num 27:1-11). The ruling stipulates that daughters inherit before uncles (v. 9). It is unclear whether the same rule of inheritance would apply in other areas, such as the high priesthood, and there is no recorded case in the Old Testament where this was tested. In any case, whilst the high priesthood as a monarchical role, the priesthood in general was not, that is to say, the priests were descendants of Aaron in general, not a specific line. The restrictions about who may not be a priest are given in Leviticus 21-22. Those restricted include those with physical defects (vv. 17-23). Those who have defiled the sanctuary by approaching it when unclean are thereafter forbidden (Lev 22:3). Though these chapters are written in the masculine gender, no explicit restriction is issued about the gender of the priests. The only explicit gender restrictions given with regards to the priesthood were those relating to the consuming of certain offerings. For example, the grain offering was permitted to be eaten by “all the males (rkz) among the children of Aaron” (Lev 6:18). Translators give “children of Aaron” here, as opposed to “sons of Aaron”, though the Hebrew is the same, to avoid tautology. This illustrates the point that the phrase “Aaron and his sons” could have been used to include both genders and is not an explicit restriction on the gender of the role. Similarly, the sin offering was permitted to be eaten by “all the males among the priests” (Lev 6:29; cf. 7:6), implying that the term “priests” was often used to cover the whole priestly family and does not (in itself) imply just males. There are regulations about when a priest’s daughter may eat the holy offerings (Lev 22:12-13), which might be taken to indicate that daughters did not automatically qualify as priests but were treated as something distinct from the class of priests. However, these regulations pertain to a daughter marrying an outsider, under which circumstances she would no longer be part of the Aaronic inheritance. The fact that only males may eat certain offerings might imply some gender-based distinction in role/class/status, but this is never described or made explicit. The Levites in general did perform an important symbolic function. God claims all the firstborn sons of Israel as his own because he spared the firstborn of Israel from the tenth plague (Num 3:12-13). However, rather than take the firstborn sons of all Israel, God dedicates the Levites to himself. For this purpose, every male of the Levites aged a month or older is counted (Num 3:15) and similarly every firstborn male of Israel aged a month or older is counted (Num 3:40). The males of Levi stand in the place of the firstborn males of Israel (cf. Num 26:62). The explicit gender specification with regards to these censuses might be an indication that those Levites who performed the service of the Tabernacle (Numbers 4) were exclusively male. There is no direct correlation between the two groups. In Numbers 3 every male is counted who is aged a month or older; in Numbers 4 the specification is those between thirty and fifty, with no explicit reference to gender (Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 47). One might make an analogy between those counted from military service, who were specified as male (Num 1:2-3), and the Levities counted for service in the Tabernacle, since they were excluded from military service due to their dedication. We do have two references to women engaged in the service of the Tabernacle. Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 refer to “the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting”. The word “served” is the Hebrew tsaba’, which is unhelpfully translated “assembled” in the KJV. Tsaba’ is most frequently used to refer to mustering for war (Num 31:7; Isa 29:7, 8; 31:4; Zech 14:12). It is also used of the service of the Levites in the Tabernacle (Num 4:23, 35, 39, 43; 8:24). The duties of the Levities described in Numbers 4 seems primarily transporting the Tabernacle and its articles (Num 4:15; 25-26; 31-32). This does not seem to fit the role described in Exod 38:8 or 1 Sam 2:22, which implies some sort of service whilst the Tabernacle was erect. If the service of the non-priestly Levites was reserved to carrying (and I don’t think this is certain) then the service performed by the women at the entrance to the Tabernacle would be specifically priestly service. It is not obvious that the service performed by the women in Exod 38:8 and 1 Sam 2:22 was a gender specific role. In 1 Samuel 2:22 women are specified as those that Hophni and Phinehas lay with so the gender specification may indicate no more than the sexual preference of the sons of Eli. In Exod 38:8 women are specified as those who donated mirrors to be re-forged into the Basin; we have no indication whether women were more likely than men to have mirrors, only the statement of fact that in this case it was women who donated them. On the other hand, the fact that the location (i.e. the entrance to the tent of meeting) is the same in both instances might indicate a specific activity performed at this location that was more usually performed by women. The rituals undertaken at the entrance of the tent of meeting include the consecration of priests (Exod 29:4; 40:12), purification of priests (Lev 14:11, 23), a regular burnt offering (Exod 29:42), offerings for new-borns (Lev 12:6), offerings for uncleanness (Lev 15:14, 29), and many other offerings. For none of these roles, nor any other service of the Tabernacle, is it stipulated that they may only be performed by women. Were we to argue that the women mentioned in Exod 38:8 and 1 Sam 2:22 were performing a gender specific role, it would be an argument from silence. The options therefore are either that these women performed an otherwise unmentioned role in the service of the Tabernacle, or that they performed one or more of the activities known to take place at the entrance of the Tabernacle. In either case, the explicit mention of women performing a ritual function at the entrance of the tent of meeting should challenge our assumptions about the gender of those conducted priestly service. Having said all this, there were de facto restrictions on the service a woman could perform in the Tabernacle due to the regulations regarding ritual uncleanness. Specifically, due to the menstrual cycle, a woman would be ritually unclean one week out of four (Lev 15:19); anyone who touched her would also be unclean. This fact, regardless of any other consideration, would make it very difficult for a woman to be high priest, since there would be no way to guarantee that the Day of Atonement wouldn’t fall during her period. Furthermore, childbearing would also place practical restraints on the service a woman could perform. She would be ritually unclean for 7 days after bearing a male child (Lev 12:2) and then would undergo a period of purification for 33 days (Lev 12:4); in the case of a female child these periods were double (Lev 12:5). It is also a fair assumption that in the culture of ancient Israel the main responsibilities of raising and nurturing the child would fall to the mother, leaving little time for other roles. Therefore, even if de jure a woman could be a priest, de facto there would be less female priests than male. Could a woman be a judge?There are no prescriptions as to who could be a judge; they were “raised up” by God (Judg 2:16) and God was with them (Judg 2:19). There is no statement anywhere in the Old Testament that places a gender specification on the role of judge. If God called you to be a judge, then you were a judge. We have one explicit example of a female judge in the person of Deborah. She is described as judging Israel (Judg 4:4) and describes herself as arising (Judg 5:7; cf. 5:12). The implication is that Deborah was raised up by God as a judge, following the pattern of the other judges. No gender distinction applies. Could a woman be a monarch? The regulations for the king of Israel are found in Deut 17:14-20. The regulations are given from a male perspective (i.e. king, not queen) but this is unsurprising. The Old Testament often reverts to the masculine when both genders are in view (cf. Numbers 6). There are no specifications given about the gender of the monarch. The description of the king as “like all the nations” implies a hereditary monarchy, and following the principles of inheritance in the Law this would mean that the monarchy passes from eldest son to eldest son. The exception would be if there were no male heir. The course of history shows that the monarchy of Israel and Judah was hereditary (saving the frequent coups in the history of Israel) and passed from father to son. We have only one example of a queen reigning in place of a king, when Athaliah ruled Judah after Ahaziah was slain and his son, Joash, was still too young to rule (2 Kgs 11:1-3). This is not a helpful test case, as Athaliah was not the only daughter of the previous king but the mother, and she was only able to take power after first slaying all the male heirs. Athaliah was not a good or godly queen, but is not explicitly condemned for being a woman in a monarchical role. We have no other examples by which to test whether an only daughter was entitled to inherit the monarchy of Israel or Judah. Nevertheless, given the laws of inheritance, it would be natural to assume that this would be case in the absence of other information. Could a woman be a prophet?The criteria for a true prophet are that what they prophesy should come to pass (Deut 18:15-22) and that they should not lead the people after other gods (Deut 13:1-3). The example of the calling of Isaiah is indicative that God will often use those who consider themselves to be unqualified (Isa 6:1-8). There are no explicit restrictions anywhere about the gender of prophets. We do have clear examples of female prophets in the Old Testament. These include Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14) and the wife of Isaiah (Isa 8:3). None of these women are condemned for being both female and a prophet, nor are they ever explicitly described as exceptional. Joel predicts a future outpouring of the Spirit when females will prophesy and receive visions (Joel 2:28); there is no indication that this is not be welcomed. God chooses on whom to send his Spirit. Moving into the New Testament, we find likewise find no gender specifications made as to who can be a prophet. Many women were present in the upper room congregation (Acts 1:14) that received the holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Peter associates this outpouring the prediction of Joel (Acts 2:17-21), underscoring that both genders received the holy Spirit. Philip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9) and women, as well as men, were prophesying at the congregation as Corinth (1 Cor 11:4-5). Could a woman be an apostle?The term ‘apostle’ is primarily used of the Twelve (Matt 10:2; Mark 6:30; Luke 6:13), and though the number of the Twelve is important, it is not clear that the apostleship was limited to the Twelve. James, the brother of Jesus, and Barnabas are called apostles (Gal 1:19; 2:9; Acts 14:4, 14); possibly also Silas (1 Thess 2:6). The word for apostle can also be used in the sense of messenger, so may not always imply the same status as that of the Twelve or of Paul and Barnabus (cf. 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). As to the qualifications of an apostle (that is, a ‘sent-one’), the primary criterion is being divinely commissioned (i.e. sent). Paul seems to imply that other elements of apostleship include having seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor 9:1) and having preached the gospel (1 Cor 9:1-2). No gender specification is ever mentioned. Of course, the first people to see the risen Jesus and to be sent by him with that good news were women. When choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot, Peter stipulates that the new apostle should be one of those who accompanied Jesus from the baptism of John till the ascension and could be a witness to the resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Paul (nor James, the brother of Jesus) would not have met such a qualification, which perhaps reinforces the distinction between the Twelve and apostles in general. Here we do find gender specific language, when Peter says “of these men (aner)” the new apostle should be chosen. He does not explicitly exclude women and may be making a de facto, rather than de jure, statement (i.e. that only males had followed Jesus from the baptism of John till the ascension). It is the case that only males were every numbered amongst the Twelve, which may imply a gender specification. As to whether a woman could be an apostle in the more general sense, much hangs on the question of whether Paul describes Junia as being an apostle or not, when he says “of note among the apostles”. A number of translations render this to the effect that Junia is held in high esteem by the apostles, rather than being one herself (Amplified Bible; CEV; ESV; HCSB; NET), whereas other render this with the implication that she was an apostle (CEB; NASB; NCV; NIV; NRSV), and others still leave the question open. Paul says Junia was a Christian before he was, and that she was a relative, implying that she was a Jewish Christian, probably in Jerusalem, and within three years of the resurrection. There is therefore nothing implausible about her having been an apostle. However, if Junia, otherwise unmentioned, as a “notable apostle”, then it is not clear what description Paul would reserve for Peter, say. Since Paul’s phrase is ambiguous, we should not force the issue. All we can say is that the Lord Jesus will send whom he will.Could a woman be an overseer/elder?The term overseer is applied both to Christ (1 Pet 2:25) and the apostles (Acts 1:20), but also denotes a role of responsibility within local congregations (Phil 1:1). The term is likely to be synonymous with the term elder (cf. Acts 20:17,28). The exact nature of the role is not described but, as the name implies, it was to oversee the congregation, almost certainly in spiritual matters. The ability to teach was fundamental to this role (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:9). Peter describes elders/overseers as shepherds of a flock (1 Pet 5:1-4). There were multiple overseers at Philippi (Phil 1:1), which implies the role was not monarchical but collegiate. The qualifications of overseers are given in masculine terms (e.g. “husband of one wife”; 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6). The specification that they rule over their own house (1 Tim 3:4) might also imply a male, but no explicit restriction is given against women being overseers. On the other hand, the qualifications of deacons are given in similar masculine terms (cf. 1 Tim 3:12) but we know of at least one female deacon (Rom 16:1-2). We do not have any explicit mention of women taking the role of overseer. It is tempting to assume that Euodia and Syntyche were either overseers or deacons, given Paul singles them out by name to be reconciled (Phil 4:2-3). Similarly, one might conclude that Chloe, on whose report Paul bases his first letter to the congregation at Corinth, was also woman of a notable role (1 Cor 1:11). It is not clear what role the “elect lady” of 2 John 1:1 served; much depends on whether her “children” were literally or spiritually her offspring. ConclusionLet us sum up. Have we found explicit proscriptions against women performing any of the roles examined? The honest answer is No. We have found no case where there is law or stipulation saying that a woman could not perform those roles. This is not to say there were no restrictions. A woman was limited with regards the priesthood because of the laws relating to ritual uncleanness. More generally, women under the Law would have been restricted because of the primacy given to their father (before they were married) or husband (after they were married). The laws of inheritance, if they applied to hereditary roles, would mean that such roles defaulted to men in most instances. There were also general societal trends that would have restricted the roles women could take. Yet de facto restrictions should not be equated with de jure restrictions. Have we found clear examples of women performing any of the roles examined? In the cases of prophets, judges, and deacons, the evidence is clear cut. Women performed these roles. Examples may be fewer but that, of itself, does not make these examples exceptional. The text itself does not describe them as exceptional. The question is more open as whether any women served in the Levitical priesthood, or whether they served as overseers in the early churches. Women were doing something at the entrance to the Tabernacle; to dissemble about whether that was a priestly role reveals more about our assumptions than about the text itself. Similarly, there were clearly many prominent women in the early churches; whether are open to those women having been regarded as overseers (or apostles) is largely dependent on issues other than what the text says. What roles could a woman perform? (Rebuttal)A. PerryIntroductionThe question for this discussion is what roles did a woman perform under the Law and in the NT ecclesia. A contested area in this age of equality. T. Gaston has presented an egalitarian reading of the evidence. We shall present the complementarian reading. Gender ‘restriction’ for a role of service is not a topic in the Law; it is just the case that Levitical roles are male; this assignment isn’t a matter for justification under the Law. This is shown by who is talked about, namely, Moses, Aaron, the sons, the fathers and their sons, and males. Whether this pattern is relevant for the ecclesia in the NT or today is a separate question. Therefore, to actually pose the question: Are there explicit gender restrictions on roles of service in the Law? is methodologically flawed; it’s not part of the discourse of the Law.Methodological IssuesMethod is important to an explanation of the difference between egalitarian and complementarian reading and interpretation. We discuss gender and roles today and write reams on the matter but none of this kind of writing is in the Law. To pose the question of gender roles and restrictions in the Law misunderstands the material that we have in the Law. We need to show that the question is appropriate to the material, but this is not done in Gaston’s essay.Good method will be aware of assumptions in reading. A case in point is pronouns. Today we are sensitive to masculine and feminine pronouns and the issue of gender inclusivity. The dominance of the masculine pronoun in the drafting of the Law is evidence that the society was patriarchal, but whether the masculine pronoun is going proxy for men and women, or just men, is determined by context. The Nazirite Vow is a case where nouns (‘men’ and ‘women’) supply the reference for the masculine pronoun. Gaston notes the problem of arguments from silence. We should also note the problem of imposing standards from our culture upon a text. For example, we might think the Law should formulate its prescriptions about priesthood with regard to gender. We might argue from the absence of language ‘restricting’ priesthood to a gender that such a role could be performed by either gender. This would be a mistake because those addressed in the priesthood regulations are Aaron, his sons, and the fathers and sons of the Levites. This is a comment about the inspired framing of the Law, but it also reflects the patriarchal nature of Israelite society. Silence can be telling, but it may tell us what we want to be told. If we want no gender specific prescriptions, we may be told this, but this is where we fail to step back and see that the priesthood Laws are framed for a certain tribe and its males. Methodological issues will appear at different points below because part of the debate between egalitarian and complementarian interpretation is how to read. Could a woman be a priest?Lexicons list the semantic range of words. Context disambiguates the use of words. This contextual usage is decisive for interpretation. Gaston sets out the decisive contextually defined ‘fathers and sons’ evidence for the male priesthood. After noting the passing of the high priesthood from father to son, he adds a comparison “as with property rights”. This then allows the observation that a daughter could inherit before uncles. However, he needs to show that we can compare a role (priesthood) with property, otherwise this looks like a red herring.Leviticus 21 and 22 have restrictions and regulations relating to priests, including shaving and beards (21:5), the taking of a wife (21:7, 13), male blemishes (21:17), testicular deformities (21:20), and so on. One of the causes of uncleanness is male ejaculate (22:4). Gaston says, “these chapters are written in the masculine gender, no explicit restriction is issued about the gender of the priests.” We need to step back and ask: what would be an ‘explicit’ restriction? We are not in a position to impose a definition. What we find in the text is that the masculine pronoun, the word for a male, and male specific restrictions are noted. Sisters and daughters are mentioned as relations of the priest. To note that there is no explicit restriction issued about the gender of the priests, places upon the text an observation, the relevance of which has not been shown. Any relevance for the observation seems motivated by modern concerns. The inspired framework for regulating the priests is completely male focused. The telling silence is this: had there been women priests, or were it the case that women could be priests, then there would have been regulations relating to and including women. The content of the Law actually does tell us the attitude of God about gender and priesthood. Again, it is important to look at the contextual use of ‘sons of Aaron’. In Leviticus 21 and 22 these are not his sons and daughters, but just his sons. This is shown by all the male orientated detail of the priestly regulations. Gaston says that Lev 6:18 “illustrates the point that the phrase “Aaron and his sons” could have been used to include both genders and is not an explicit restriction on the gender of the role.” This is misleading because it talks about lexical information (a ‘could’) rather than the use of the phrase in a context like the priestly regulations. The contextual information is different in Lev 6:18 (it is “All the males among the children of Aaron”) as opposed to Leviticus 21 and 22; hence, there is no argument here for the possibility of women priests.The same kind of mistake is made with Gaston’s next point. He says, “Similarly, the sin offering was permitted to be eaten by “all the males among the priests” (Lev 6:29; cf. 7:6), implying that the term ‘priests’ was often used to cover the whole priestly family and does not (in itself) imply just males.” That priests had families, wives and children, sons and daughters, is unexceptionable. That the plural ‘priests’ might be used to refer to priestly families does not mean that the singular ‘priest’ could refer to a female priest. This usage has to be established from examples in the regulations. These regulations are clear in their restriction of the priesthood to males as shown by the instructions about the eating of offerings. If women could be priests, why would they be excluded as priests from eating the offerings? When females are mentioned, it is similarly explicit – daughters of priests in certain circumstances are permitted to eat of the offering (Lev 22:12-13) and the ‘priest’ here is her father. We can be guilty of imposing an external standard of what would count as ‘explicit’ in order to give the impression that matters are unclear when what we have to do is recognise how matters are in fact clear. The same mistake in reading is found in Gaston’s treatment of Numbers 4, which is all about the taking down of tabernacle. The language is of “X and his sons (ynb)” but Gaston says that there is “no explicit reference to gender”. This begs the question as to whether ynb has the meaning ‘sons’ in this context. If it does, then matters are explicit. If it means ‘children’, then this embraces male and female. The fact that lexically the term can be either does not imply it is ambiguous in context. When we look at the context of taking down and putting up the tabernacle, it seems clear we have, correctly, ‘X and his sons’. What is interesting is that the age of service for ‘entry’ into the service of the tabernacle, 30 years to 50 years, is given in a chapter where physical work, some of it heavy-lifting, is described (e.g. Num 4:19 “Aaron and his sons shall go in, and appoint them every one to his service and to his burden”). What about the example of women at the entrance of the tabernacle (Exod 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22)? Obviously, ‘service at the entrance’ is not ‘service of the tabernacle’ nor is it necessarily ‘Levitical’ or ‘priestly’. Gaston has no grounds for saying “If the service of the non-priestly Levites was reserved to carrying (and I don’t think this is certain) then the service performed by the women at the entrance to the Tabernacle would be specifically priestly service.” To show ‘Levitical’ or ‘priestly’ service, we would need at least some information to this effect, but we have nothing in this verse. In contrast, Numbers 4:23, 35, 39, 43 and 8:24 are about ‘entering’ the tabernacle or ‘entering’ the service of the tabernacle, and the pattern of the instructions is for sons ‘to enter’ (hence the masculine pronoun, Num 4:19). What needs to be shown is that the ‘service/assembling’ of women at the entrance actually involved ritual functions. Nothing is put forward by Gaston to show that such service/assembling was for ritual functions. The equation is just assumed. If we take the examples of ‘ritual functions’ at the door, it is clear from the context who is involved: Exod 29:4; 40:12 are about the consecration of the high priest by Moses and therefore use the 2p masc. sing; Lev 14:11, 23 identifies ‘priests’ as those performing the ritual; Exod 29:42 involves the altar (v. 38) which was inside the tabernacle court; women were outside by the entrance; and Lev 12:6, 15:14; 29 have men and women bringing offerings to the priest at the door, which is to expected and not the ‘ritual’ of the tabernacle.We cannot say the ‘service/assembly’ at the entrance was gender specific; we can say we have no information on what was happening. Why were women excluded from Levitical and priestly duties in the tabernacle? Gaston finishes his section on women priests with plenty of unambiguous information about practical matters to do with women, matters which might offer an explanation of their exclusion. Typologically, we might root the priesthood of the male in the headship of the man Christ Jesus. If we are inclined to be sociological, we might say that the historically Israel were simply a patriarchal society. The Roles of Women in the EcclesiaThis is well-worn topic and there is nothing new to add in rebuttal except for one point (below). Women were equally bestowed with the Spirit and prophesied. The debate here is about at which gatherings of the church this happened. Whether Junia (Junias?) was an apostle or not is a hoary old chestnut, but the pattern of male apostles makes this unlikely, making Paul’s remark mean that she was noted by the apostles. As for overseers/elders, the criteria of selection are explicit enough in specifying the husbands of one wife. Gaston says “no explicit restriction is given against women being overseers” but this is implied in the positive selection criteria: the absence of a negatively specified criterion against women is a moot observation. What about deacons? They are to be the husbands of one wife which begs the question about Phoebe. Was she a deacon? There are two points to make here: first, a historical exception should not trump the clear advice in Titus. There is a qualitative difference between later instructions for appointing elders and servants, which are exclusively male, and earlier historical evidence that a woman was a ‘deacon’ at Cenchrea. Secondly, was she a deacon? The problem here is that the Greek word is the common word for ‘servant’ and we do not know if Phoebe’s service was that of an office-holder as in Titus.ConclusionHave we found explicit proscriptions that prevent women being priests, overseers, elders and deacons? The honest answer is Yes. The difference to mark is that between positive and negative proscriptions. Our positive proscriptions prevent a woman from being a priest, overseer, elder and deacon, but we have no negative proscriptions saying that they cannot be in any of these roles. Our point is that the absence of such negative proscription is moot. Archaeology NewsKay McGrathJerusalem. Ritmeyer Archaeology Design has blogged on the availability of a new DVD — Virtual Tour of the Temple 2.0 — visiting the Temple Mount virtually rather than actually. Cost of the DVD: 29,90?€.In February, Leen Ritmeyer advised that a — 3D Model of Solomon’s Temple — had been created by Daniel Smith based on the book by Dr. Ritmeyer — The Quest. Dr. Ritmeyer’s qualification: “I don’t agree with some of the details, the video is well worth watching.”February also highlighted the creation of a Video (SourceFlix) by Joel Kramer — “The Mountain of the Lord” — providing “spectacular aerial footage” of Mount Moriah.In the Jerusalem Walls National Park in March, excavations being undertaken by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) revealed a seal, the age of which is estimated at 2,600 years old, and which bore the name “Elihana bat Gael”. The IAA reported on this find under the subject heading — A Strong Woman — the First Temple Period Version. Comment can also be had at Ritmeyer Archaeology Design — Two First Temple period seals found in Jerusalem.To Israel. A Press Release by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) on finding a — 1,700-Year-Old Funerary Inscriptions Exposed in Zippori — “Three 1,700-year-old funerary inscriptions written in Aramaic and Greek were recently revealed in the ancient cemetery in Moshav Zippori in the north. The two Aramaic inscriptions mention individuals referred to as “rabbis” who were buried in the western cemetery of Zippori; their names have not yet been deciphered.”A hiker in the area of Lower Galilee, at the Horns of Hattin discovered a 3,500-year-old seal later identified as an Egyptian “scarab amulet from the New Kingdom, the period stretching from the 16th-11th centuries BCE” — Israeli Hiker Discovers 3,500-Year-Old Egyptian Seal in Galilee.A World of Technology — Dead Sea Scrolls Puzzle Pieces to Be Matched via Digitizing — “Computer scientists and Dead Sea Scrolls’ scholars are building a digital work environment for one of the most important discoveries of the 20th century. This will enable the virtual joining of the “puzzle pieces” of thousands of ancient scroll fragments found in Judean Desert caves.”Tel Aviv University (TAU) in a Press Release stated that an — Extensive Fabric Collection Dating Back to Kings David and Solomon — had been discovered — “Textiles found at Timna Valley archaeological dig provide a colorful picture of a complex society”.On an “outing with friends” at Tel Rehov, a “3,400-year-old statue was recently uncovered by a 7-year-old boy”. Information about the find are available at the Israel Antiquities Authority under the title — Ancient Figurine Discovered by 7-Year-Old Boy.Back at Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) another article which may well be of interest to subscribers — A Biblical Altar on Mt. Ebal and Other Israelite Footprints in the Jordan Valley? — “Potential archaeological evidence of the Israelites entering the Promised Land”.The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) also advised on the — Surprising Finds in Jerusalem’s Legendary Schneller Compound: A Large Impressive Winery and a Roman Bathhouse were Exposed — “Unexpected finds more than 1,600 years old were uncovered during archaeological excavations financed by the Merom Yerushalayim Company, which the Israel Antiquities Authority is carrying out in Schneller Compound prior to the construction of residential buildings for Jerusalem’s ultra-orthodox population.”Live Science reports on a recent discovery near Bethlehem of 100 tombs said to extend back 4000 years — Ancient Burial Ground with 100 Tombs Found Near Biblical Bethlehem.At Reuters, a Feature article — Is This the Sound of Worship During Jesus’ Time? — “The sacred chants of the ancient Jewish temples in Jerusalem are a long-lost art. But some musicologists believe the 2,000-year-old notes can be reconstructed by drawing on traditional prayer songs heard in synagogues today, extrapolating from the sounds of biblical instruments like the harp and observing medieval church incantation that has common roots in the Holy Land.”The Bethsaida Excavation Report (.pdf) is available for download — The Consortium for the Bethsaida Excavation Project: Report on the 2015 Excavation Season.Another Hiker in eastern Galilee discovered a — Rare 2,000-Year-Old Gold Coin — tying in with a recent article (April 2016) in Israel21c — Why Do Hikers in Israel Keep Stumbling Upon Ancient Relics? — “In Israel, you don’t have to be Indiana Jones to make exceptional archaeological finds. Some of the most exciting recent discoveries were made by accident.”To conclude Israel, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) advise — Special Bronze Implements were Discovered in Archaeological Excavations at Magdala — a 2,000 Year Old Jewish Settlement on the Sea of Galilee — “A decorated bronze incense shovel (used for transferring embers from place to place) and a bronze jug were recently uncovered in archaeological excavations in Magdala on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. The Israel Antiquities Authority is leading archaeological excavations slated for the construction of a guesthouse at Magdala. The land is owned by Arke New Gate.”Crossing to Egypt (in brief) — 4500 Years Old Tomb of Unknown Ancient Egyptian Queen Discovered — “new discovery of an Old Kingdom tomb in Abusir for a Queen who wasn’t known before called “Khentkaus III.”Particles Could Reveal Clues to How Egypt Pyramid was Built — “An international team of researchers said Sunday they will soon begin analyzing cosmic particles collected inside Egypt’s Bent Pyramid to search for clues as to how it was built and learn more about the 4,600-year-old structure.”Early Egyptian Queen Revealed in 5,000-Year-Old Hieroglyphs — “About 60 drawings and hieroglyphic inscriptions, dating back around 5,000 years, have been discovered”The Space Archaeologist Unearthed 4000 Years Old Tomb in Egypt — “discovered a Middle Kingdom tomb in El-Lisht to the south of Senusret I pyramid.”More on “Hidden Chambers” — King Tutankhamun’s Tomb:New Scans of King Tut’s Tomb May Reveal Hidden Burial Chamber — “On April 2, a new series of radar scans will be performed on King Tutankhamun’s tomb to search for hidden chambers that may contain an undiscovered royal burial, Egypt’s antiquities ministry has announced.”Amazing Mummies: King Tut’s Great Grandparents — “At 3,400 years old, Yuya and Tuyu don’t look their age. And they were buried with treasures that hint at what might lie hidden behind Tut’s tomb.”Have 2 Chambers Been Discovered in King Tut’s Tomb? — “The existence of hidden chambers in King Tutankhamun’s burial chamber may be more likely, as new radar scans have found empty cavities behind the tomb’s north and west walls, Egypt’s antiquities ministry announced this morning (March 17).”Experts Doubt Claims of ‘Hidden Chambers’ in King Tut’s Tomb — “Radar experts are casting doubt on claims that King Tutankhamun’s tomb contains hidden, undiscovered chambers — and they’re calling for more data to be released.” Ancient Papyri Deciphered by Armchair Archaeologists — “A project for the deciphering of ancient papyri found in Graeco-Roman Egypt has recruited armchair archaeologists from around the world with amazing results.”Ancient Memphis Site to Undergo Regeneration — “A team of archaeologists from the University of York is playing a pivotal role in a major project to give a new lease of life to the ruins of the capital of Ancient Egypt.”Eight Statues of Sekhmet Unearthed in Luxor — “A group of eight statues of the goddess Sekhmet in black granite was discovered by the members of “The Colossi of Memnon and Amenhotep III Temple Conservation Project” directed by Hourig Sourouzian.”Boat Discovery Sheds Light — “A recently discovered 4,500-year-old non-royal boat in the Abusir necropolis is shedding new light on watercraft construction in ancient Egypt, reports Nevine El-Aref.”CT Scan Shows Pharaoh Ramesses III Was Murdered by Multiple Assassins — “A missing toe reveals that the god-king was killed by more than one plotter.”3,400-Year-Old Necropolis Found in Egypt — “A remarkable 3,400-year-old necropolis has been discovered at an Egyptian quarry site.”A brief stop in Turkey — Historic Church Discovered in Turkey’s Nev?ehir ‘Could Change History of Orthodoxy’ — “Another historical church has been discovered underground during excavations in Turkey’s Cappadocia region, with experts saying the frescoes inside could change the history of Orthodoxy.”Archaeologists Find Bronze Age Shipwreck off Turkey’s Southwest — “Underwater works carried out by Dokuz Eylül University since 2007 have unearthed one of the oldest shipwrecks ever found in Turkey’s seas.”Ancient Assyrians Buried Their Dead With Turtles — “The reptiles may have represented eternal life, served as symbolic protectors.”To Greece — Turning From Idols to Serve the Living God — “Recently I was browsing through photos made in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (Salonica, Thessalonica), Greece, in 2008. I was impressed with the images of various gods and goddesses that were known in the city in the first century A.D. There were statues and busts of Egyptian gods such as Isis, Serapis, and Harpokrates/Horus. Greek gods and goddesses such as Dionysus, Hades, Apollo, Athena, Aphrodite, Demeter, and the mother of the gods often associated with Kybele (Cybele) were known. And there were others.”A brief stay in Rome — Roma Subterranea Judaica (series) — “The following pdfs are provided as a service to the community by the International Catacomb Society.”Tomb Excavations Uncover Treasures of an Etruscan Princess — “Amber necklace, golden Egyptian scarab amulet among findings.”Ancient Romans Wrote With Metallic Ink — “By analyzing charred scrolls that were burnt and buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 B.C.E., researchers have determined that the Romans wrote with metallic ink—an innovation thought to have originated several centuries later in the Middle Ages, according to a paper published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”Text in Lost Language May Reveal God or Goddess Worshipped by Etruscans at Ancient Temple — “Archaeologists in Italy have discovered what may be a rare sacred text in the Etruscan language that is likely to yield rich details about Etruscan worship of a god or goddess. The lengthy text is inscribed on a large 6th century BCE sandstone slab that was uncovered from an Etruscan temple.”Jordan — Restoring Petra — “Archaeologists Reviving Ancient Waterworks.”Jordan Valley Prehistoric Village Discovered — “A prehistoric village from about 12,000 years ago was uncovered near the Sea of Galilee on Wednesday, by archaeologists from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The site is located at the Ein-Gev River east of the lake. A series of excavations at the site revealed human remains, flint tools, artworks, animal fossils, ground stone tools, and bone tools. The findings show that many people lived in the area, which is estimated to have covered roughly 1200 square yards. The findings included cultural characteristics typical of both the Old Stone Age known as the Paleolithic period and the New Stone Age known as the Neolithic period.”93-Mile-Long Ancient Wall in Jordan Puzzles Archaeologists — “A new map of an ancient wall that extended 93 miles (150 kilometers) in Jordan has left archaeologists with a series of mysteries, including questions over when the wall was built, who built it and what its purpose was.”To Iraq — Math Whizzes of Ancient Babylon Figured Out Forerunner of Calculus — “Tracking and recording the motion of the sun, the moon, and the planets as they paraded across the desert sky, ancient Babylonian astronomers used simple arithmetic to predict the positions of celestial bodies. Now, new evidence reveals that these astronomers, working several centuries B.C.E., also employed sophisticated geometric methods that foreshadow the development of calculus. Historians had thought such techniques did not emerge until more than 1400 years later, in 14th century Europe.”City of Biblical Abraham Brimmed With Trade and Riches — “Iraqi and American archaeologists are digging at one of the world’s oldest urban centers—and finding evidence of the earliest long-distance commerce.”General — Images Related to the Bible from the New York Public Library — “On Jan 6, 2016, the New York Public Library released more than 187,000 items in their digital collection into the public domain. Mark Hoffman sent along some of the treasures he found and that motivated me to dig deeper. The list below reflects highlights of what we discovered.”Satellite Bible Atlas by William Schlegel.First Non-Utilitarian Weapons Found in the Arabian Peninsula — “An exceptional collection of bronze weapons dating from the Iron Age II (900-600 BC) has been uncovered near Adam, in the Sultanate of Oman. The remains were discovered scattered on the ground in a building belonging to what is thought to be a religious complex, during excavations carried out by the French archaeological mission in central Oman. In particular, they include two complete quivers and weapons made of metal, including two bows, objects that are for the most part non-functional and hitherto unknown in the Arabian Peninsula. Additional archaeological research, which began in 2011 in the region, will be needed to elucidate the political system, social practices and rituals existing in the Arabian Peninsula at the time.”Near Eastern Archaeology — “Archaeological discoveries continually enrich our understanding of the people, culture, history, and literature of the Middle East. The heritage of its peoples — from urban civilization to the Bible — both inspires and fascinates. Near Eastern Archaeology brings to life the ancient world from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean with vibrant images and authoritative analyses. NEA (ISSN 1094-2076) is published four times each year (quarterly); March, June, September, and December.” — Current Issue: Free access to latest issue here until 4/18/16! Ancient Mesopotamian Culture Vanishing Before Our Eyes — “For thousands of years, the marshes at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in modern day Iraq were an oasis of green in a dry landscape, hosting a wealth of wildlife. The culture of the Marsh Arab, or Ma’dan, people who live there is tightly interwoven with the ecosystem of the marshes. The once dense and ubiquitous common reed (Phragmites australis) served as raw material for homes, handicrafts, tools, and animal fodder for thousands of years. Distinctive mudhif communal houses, built entirely of bundled reeds, appear in Sumerian stonework from 5,000 years ago. Now that culture is drying up with the marshes.”Marginal NotesEph 2:16 – APChrist is the one through whom God reconciles all things; he is the agent or mediator; hence, reconciliation is also attributed to Christ: And that he might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it (evn auvtw/|) … Eph 2:16 (KJV)The ‘both’ (avmfo,teroj) that are reconciled are Jew and Gentile – “For he is our peace, who has made us both one” (Eph 2:14) and “for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). The ‘peace’ that is made through the blood of the cross (Col 1:20) is the ‘peace’ between Jew and Gentile – “by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Eph 2:15). Paul continues this thought in Colossians, And you, who once were alienated and enemies in the mind, in evil deeds, he has now reconciled in the body of his flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him… Col 1:21-22 (RSV revised)Here, Paul is addressing the Gentiles at Colossae (Col 1:27) who were once alienated (avpallotrio,w, Eph 2:12, ‘aliens from the commonwealth of Israel’). The reconciling work of Christ presents Gentiles ‘holy’ (cf. Eph 5:27) and the allusion is to Exod 19:6, “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” They were being incorporated into Israel by virtue of being created in Christ.Matt 27:46 – APThe cry from the cross, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me’ is very well known. The Greek verb (evgkatalei,pw) is given the meanings ‘leave behind, abandon, desert, forsake’ in lexicons. The corresponding Hebrew verb in Psalm 22 (bz[) is common and has a similar range of meanings. Since ‘forsake’ and ‘abandon’ carry a negative moral overtone, ‘leave behind’ or ‘leave’ are perhaps better choices. The question is: when did God leave Jesus behind?The answer to this question is – at the ninth hour. At this time the darkness that had been present from the sixth to the ninth hour left (Matt 27:45). Jesus recognised in this darkness the presence of Yahweh who had descended in this visible manifestation to be with his Son. Darkness is a common indicator of the presence of God from the natural world (Gen 1:2, Psalm 18) to the tabernacle and temple in the Holy of Holies. Jesus’ annunciation is his observational comment on the departure of the darkness and Yahweh. Jesus died at about the ninth hour. His question is very precise: it is not about the severance of fellowship, nor about feeling his ministry was after all a failure, nor was it an expression of a feeling of rejection. Rather, it is just the question of why God lifted the darkness at the ninth hour. The answer is that this is how the Father told his Son that the moment for him to die had come. And so he did.ReviewsJames R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. 360pp. ISBN: 978-0-8028-6234-1.The Christian canon knows and recognises four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were not, by any means, the only documents known as gospels, but most of these other claimants have only tenuous basis for being called so. In most cases, there are written late (second century onwards) by sects seeking to support their own heterodox views. It is common for historians to treat references to the “Gospel according to the Hebrews”, “Gospel of the Nazarenes”, “Gospel of the Ebionites”, in the same way, as a later and derivative document used to by one or more Judaizing sect. In this book James Edwards promotes a different proposal, that the Hebrew Gospel was the earliest gospel to be written and is one of the primary sources behind Luke’s gospel. The first three chapters of the book begin to lay out the case for this gospel, recounting all the early Christian references to this gospel and quotations from it. From this information Edwards determines that the Hebrew Gospel was widely known by early Christians and treated as an authority. Furthermore, he argues, the quotations from the gospel do not appear to be derived from one or more of the canonical gospels but do bear some similarity to Luke’s gospel. This latter point leads to a second component of Edward’s thesis, the observation of a high concentration of Semitisms in Luke’s gospel, especially in the material unique to Luke (Special Luke). In chapter 4 he presents this evidence and argues that the explanation for these Semitisms is that Luke depends on a Semitic (Hebrew) source for this material. In chapter 5, Edwards begins to deal with some potential objections or alternatives to his thesis, such as that the Semitisms in Luke’s gospel may be due to his dependence on the Septuagint. Chapter 6 addresses the more fundamental question of why the Hebrew Gospel has not survived and did not receive canonical status. Edwards worries about anti-Semitism in the early church. The proposal of an early Hebrew gospel has important implications for our understanding of the development of the gospel tradition. Broadly, scholars have concluded that Mark was the earliest gospel and was a source for both Matthew and Luke. The material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not present in Mark is supposed to be based on another early gospel, Q, which is otherwise unattested. Edwards challenges the Q thesis in chapter 7, with familiar criticisms of the overstated claims often made on behalf of Q. Yet, whilst the criticisms themselves are valid, they are somewhat unconnected to Edwards’ own thesis, which would not explain the origin of the material shared by Matthew and Luke but of the material unique to Luke. Whilst Edwards thinks we should dispense with the Q thesis, he does still recognise the need for some shared source for the double tradition. His final chapter deals with the common association made between the Hebrew Gospel and Matthew. It has sometimes been theorised that there must have been an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind Matthew’s gospel because of the commonly repeated claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (when the canonical Matthew is in Greek). Edwards has a different proposal, that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel and his name was later attributed to a Greek gospel, which he was not responsible for. This thesis may have some merit. It has always seemed an oddity that the apostle Matthew (if that is who is intended) should base his gospel on Mark’s - surely he was an eyewitness in his own right. From what we know of the Hebrew Gospel it is difficult to see it as an earlier version of Greek Matthew. Yet this does require the hypothesis that the early Christians either intentionally, or mistakenly, misattributed a Greek gospel and that may be difficult to swallow.There are plenty of limitations to Edwards’ proposal. He does not attempt to sketch out the contents of the Hebrew Gospel, or even answer whether significant events (e.g. virgin birth, resurrection) were included. Given his thesis that a high concentration of Semitisms in Luke is indicative of a dependence on the Hebrew Gospel, one would think that he could venture an opinion. For example, based on his own analysis it would seem that Luke’s account of the virgin birth should be dependent on the Hebrew Gospel. He also does not attempt to date the Hebrew Gospel, though if it was written by the apostle Matthew, and a source for Luke’s gospel, then it must be early. But generally the greatest disappointment with the book is that a Hebrew Gospel is no longer extant and so opportunities for substantiating Edward’s thesis and extending it are going to be limited. Nevertheless, this is an intriguing proposal and one that adds to our understanding of the development of the gospel tradition. TGNewsAnother blow for Biblical Studies!Sheffield Phoenix Press will cease to publish new books as from the beginning of 2016 (with the exception of a handful of titles in 2016 and volumes of the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Revised, expected from 2018 onwards). Sheffield Phoenix Press remains in existence to sell its 300+ already published volumes through the website (), with a year-round 50% discount on hardback books for individuals (unless there is a paperback), as well as from online and local booksellers.Sheffield Phoenix Press has been in existence for 12 years as a ‘not-for-profit’ organization run from Sheffield University’s now defunct Department of Biblical Studies. But with the generation of scholars that made that department famous throughout the world of academic biblical studies now all retired, the demise of their publishing house is just part of the same circle of life and death. In its relatively short lifetime, Sheffield Phoenix Press performed a vital function in the field of academic biblical studies, offering students and scholars both edgy and traditional scholarship free of commercial and confessional pressures. Generally speaking, edgy books form the 1980s published by Phoenix and their predecessor Almond Press should be acquired second-hand for personal and ecclesial libraries. The reason for this is that the 1980s saw the turn to literary and narrative studies in biblical studies, a turn championed by Sheffield. Sadly, this turn waned during the 1990s as indeed Sheffield became a more liberal hub of biblical scholarship being attracted to the ‘minimalist’ approach in biblical archaeology. Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark have agreed to offer publication assistance to their current stable of authors, on the same terms as Phoenix, but we can offer no general recommendation to purchase for their recent catalogue of books. Another Blow for Theology!The centuries-old Faculty of Theology in the University of Utrecht is to close.Logos 6 Engine (Free)Logos Bible Software supply their core engine as a free download. The advantage of this is in the facility it gives to index DOCX files and import them to a personal library. There are free books from time to time and some free books permanently available. The principal free download is the Perseus Classical library. Whether Logos is worth buying, I can only say that it is very expensive compared to BibleWorks and it seems to me that a Bible student is better off picking and choosing print books over time as his/her studies progress rather than buying into a ready-made library selected for you by a conservative evangelical software publisher. Still, for those interested, go to: or free download and install of logos 6 core engine, go to and select the tab ‘Store’ and then the tab ‘Free Options.’ You can download two Bibles, a study Bible, SBL Greek NT, Codex Sinaiticus, an abridged Hebrew Lexicon, a Bible Dictionary, etc. as well as the Perseus Classical Library.PostscriptJesus said, ‘You cannot serve God and money’, but people do actually think that they can; they serve money during the week and serve God on Sunday. But things are worse than this because they then use their money on Sunday to pay a professional clergy to tell them what to think about God. Okay, so this is a parody; people aren’t that cynical. People have to work for a living and they take a day off per week to serve God. They do overtime and seek promotion; they just want to get on in life. My question is really this: what does God give to those who serve money in this way? and my answer is – nothing. All the time and effort you put into work doesn’t bring about growing in the knowledge of God. If you spend a lot of time serving money, and God gives you nothing for that time, what are you missing out on? You may not actually know, and you may think that buying knowledge from the clergy or from the Christian bookstore is sufficient. So, what does God give those who serve Him rather than money? my answer this time is - something, a knowledge of Him.--------Publically disparaging the work of others among the ecclesias is wasteful of time and unprofitable. In fact, it is rather the case that you depend on the work of others in order to do your own work. Hence, you should value and praise their work for the good that it does and the opportunity that it affords for your own endeavours. So it is that the EJournal could not exist were it not for the fact that there are other magazines fulfilling the needs of the ecclesias, needs that the EJournal does not address. The work of the magazines in the community is to be commended. Editors no doubt get private letters of complaint, but using the Internet to disparage magazines is wrong because it undermines their good work. --------The EJournal publishes advanced exegesis and exposition, not because many people need this or want it, but because the advanced exegesis and exposition published in the Christian churches presents the challenge to Christadelphians that their doctrine and practice is fundamentally in error. Of course, some like to read this level of material, but the more important objective is to recognise that there is a brief window of opportunity now to write advanced exegesis and exposition that combats the challenge of scholarship. This creates a resource on the Internet for use by anyone should the need for a more rigorous conservative defence of truth be required. APSupplementWho is Immanuel?P. WynsIntroductionThe identity of Immanuel is disputed and different suggestions have been proposed. This article will argue the case that Immanuel is Hezekiah. The problem with identifying Hezekiah as Immanuel are two-fold; (1) It is disallowed by the chronology of Hezekiah’s life; and (2) Even with an ‘adjusted’ chronology it is ruled out by the date of the Syro-Ephraimite war. The Chronology of HezekiahProponents of Hezekiah as Immanuel have offered the solution that Hezekiah was 15 instead of 25 when he began to reign and conjectured a textual corruption in the MT where either the numerals or the numeral-words were misread. The online Encyclopaedia Judaica entry states,Nor is it definitely known how old Hezekiah was when called to the throne. II Kings xviii. 2 makes him twenty-five years of age. It is most probable that “twenty-five” is an error for “fifteen.” (p. 20) G. Galil affirms, Alternatively, it has been proposed that Hezekiah was 15 and not 25 at his investiture, or that Ahaz was 25 years old and not 20 when he began to rule (as is asserted by the Septuagint for II Chronicles 25:1).Textual degradation is caused by transmission errors and does not reflect on the inspiration of the original text. The sections we are dealing with are concerned with historical reportage and probably rely on royal annals as source documents. In Aramaic inscriptions, numerals occur as early as the eighth century BC. A bronze lion weight found at Nineveh (8th century) has the number 15 expressed in three different ways using both numbers and numeral words. In the time of Isaiah (c. 700 BC), the Hebrews used the old Phoenician script, in which the waw and yod were not plain strokes, and most probably did not use the alphabetic but the Phoenician or Aramaic numerals, that did have the form of simple strokes.H. L. Allrick traces the Aramaic numbering system back to the eighth century. In Aramaic, vertical strokes are used for units and horizontal strokes for tens. The vertical digit strokes were generally grouped in threes. For the hundreds, a stylized mem was used, plus vertical strokes to indicate how many hundred; for the thousands an abbreviation of the word was used, together with strokes to indicate how many thousand. “As for the Hebrews themselves”, he says, “there is no doubt they too employed the same principles of numerical notation.” J. W. Wenham adds, “It is easy to see how such a system, whether through defects of writing or of the material used or through scribal carelessness, would lead to the misreading of a number—usually making it one too big or one too small”. Nevertheless, it is always preferable to assume that there is no transmission error involved and that problems exist because the data is misunderstood and therefore incorrectly synchronised. The era from Uzziah to Hezekiah is notoriously difficult to date as overlapping co-regencies existed and synchronizing Judean kings with northern Israelite monarchs is further hampered by rival regencies and retroactive regnal counts. Scholars have recognised this problem as the following Wikipedia survey states, Since Albright and Friedman, several scholars have explained these dating problems on the basis of a co-regency between Hezekiah and his father Ahaz between 729 and 716/715 BC. Assyriologists and Egyptologists recognize that co-regency was a practice both in Assyria and Egypt. After noting that co-regencies were only used sporadically in the northern kingdom (Israel), Nadav Na’aman writes, “In the kingdom of Judah, on the other hand, the nomination of a co-regent was the common procedure, beginning from David who, before his death, elevated his son Solomon to the throne…When taking into account the permanent nature of the co-regency in Judah from the time of Joash, one may dare to conclude that dating the co-regencies accurately is indeed the key for solving the problems of biblical chronology in the eighth century B.C.” Among the numerous scholars who have recognized the co-regency between Ahaz and Hezekiah are, Kenneth Kitchen in his various writings, Leslie McFall, and Jack Finegan. McFall, in his 1991 article, argues that if 729 BC (that is, the Judean regnal year beginning in Tishri of 729) is taken as the start of the Ahaz/Hezekiah coregency, and 716/715 BC as the date of the death of Ahaz, then all the extensive chronological data for Hezekiah and his contemporaries in the late eighth century BC are in harmony. Further, McFall found that no textual emendations are required among the numerous dates, reign lengths, and synchronisms given in the Hebrew Testament for this period”. Essentially, A. Perry adopts the same synchronism in his spreadsheet ‘Kings Chronology’ and this dates the birth of Hezekiah to 740. Surprisingly, other scholars achieve approximately the same birth year by emending the age of Hezekiah. This article will therefore employ ‘Kings Chronology’ by Perry for the biblical chronology as it provides a more elegant solution than textual emendation. This removes the chronological difficulty surrounding Hezekiah’s birth. However, as Perry points out, the Immanuel prophecy is dated to the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis of 735/734 and this is determined by Assyrian chronological records. This would mean that Hezekiah was born 5-6 years before the prophecy was given rather than less than a year after the prophecy. This is a seemingly insurmountable problem but only if the eponym chronicles and biblical records have been correctly aligned. When we examine the primary records it becomes apparent that certain assumptions are made, particularly with regards to the Biblical records, where certain accounts are deemed to be parallel reports when they are clearly not.The Primary Biblical RecordsThe primary biblical records are 2 Kings 15 and 16, 2 Chronicles 28, Isaiah 7 and Hosea 5 and 6. Many scholars posit contradictions in the OT account of the Syro-Ephraimite war and attempt either to harmonise or dismiss the differences. Is the account contradictory or just poorly understood? The most glaring contradiction is the appeal by Ahaz for Assyrian assistance against Rezin and Pekah. In both Kings and Chronicles, either tribute or inducements (garnered from the temple) are sent to Tiglath-Pileser III (henceforth Pul), with an urgent request for help. In 2 Chron 28:20, no help is offered; in fact the opposite is the case, as Pul “distresses” Ahaz (LXX lit., “struck him a blow”). As a consequence, Ahaz turns to the “gods of Damascus” (Baal) because they were effective in helping his enemy Rezin. In contrast, the account in 2 Kgs 16:7-13 has Pul respond positively to an appeal for assistance against Rezin and Pekah. Assyria defeats the confederation; as a consequence, Ahaz turns to the Assyrian god (Ashur) and has a copy made of the Assyrian altar. Whereas one account has Rezin capturing Elath (2 Kings 16), the other account describes an Edomite and Philistine invasion (2 Chronicles 28). Rather than harmonizing the account or dismissing the differences as ideologically motivated (to suit the theological motif of the author) it is entirely possible that we are dealing with two different invasions by Syria and Ephraim. The invasion in 2 Chronicles 28 (which is parallel with Isaiah 7) is different to the invasion described in 2 Kings 16.2 Chronicles 28 parallel with Isaiah 7The 2 Chronicles’ account states the following;Wherefore the Lord his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. 2 Chron 28:5Chronicles differentiates the attacks by Israel and Syria – Ahaz was delivered to Syria and also to Israel – it seems that at this stage Syria and Ephraim operated independently; they were as yet not confederated. Neither Syria nor Ephraim could capture Jerusalem (Isa 7:1) but they wreaked havoc in the countryside of Judea; captives and spoil were transported to Damascus; Ephraim also took captives and plunder. However, at the conclusion of these invasions Syria and Ephraim determined to coordinate their next efforts and plotted that any future invasion would result in replacing Ahaz with a lackey of the confederation, the “son of Tabeal” (Isa 7:6). This new intelligence (provided by Isaiah) came as shock to the house of David especially as they had to deal with the loss of much of the royal cabinet and the king’s son Maaseiah during the conflict (2 Chron 28:7) and now they were facing the possibility of the end of the Davidic dynasty. H. Cazelles offers an intriguing suggestion in his support of equating Ben Tabeal with a son of Tubail. He thinks that Tabe’al is an Aramaic form of Phoenician ‘Ittoba’l. Furthermore, he proposes that the announcement of a ‘dynastic heir’, named Immanuel (= ‘God with us’) in 7:14 is Isaiah’s use of a ‘parallel name’ in response to the attempt by Rezin and Pekah to place ‘Ittoba’l (‘Ba’al with him’) on the throne in Jerusalem. It is at this point that Isaiah enters the scene accompanied by his son Shear-jashub (a remnant returns) in anticipation of the captives that would be sent home at the urging of the prophet Oded (2 Chron 28:8-15). It is notable that the prophet Oded appealed to the “chiefs of Ephraim” and not to Pekah and this may indicate that there were still internal tensions regarding the manner of his rise to power or his legitimacy. After giving the Immanuel prophecy, Isaiah issues the following warning:The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. Isa. 7:17-18 The “uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt” is the brook of Egypt, which formed the border between Philistia and Egypt (2 Chron 9:26). P. S. Evans observes that,One of the most famous gods of Philistia is Baal-zebub “Master of the flies,” known as the god of Ekron (2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16). In fact, in the entire HB/OT the word bwbz occurs in reference to the god of Ekron, Isa 7:18 and Qoh 10:1. Ahaz is being warned about the Philistines and the Assyrians. Isaiah 7:17-18 is prophesying about the still future invasion that is reported in 2 Chron 28:16-20. The warning about Assyria is further elaborated in Isaiah 8 with the naming of Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8:1) which means “quick to spoil speedy to prey”. The second half of Chronicles 28 describes an attack by Philistia (and Edom) and Assyrian refusal to help Ahaz (v. 16); instead, Pul “distresses” him (v. 20). The translations offer the alternatives, “oppress/troubled/afflict” and report that he (Tiglath-Pileser) “came unto him”.2 Kings 15The account in 2 Chronicles 28 narrates events from the perspective of Judah. It commences with the invasion(s) of Pekah and Rezin and concludes with Philistia, Edom and Assyria troubling Judah. In contrast, the account in 2 Kings 15 provides a summary of events for the whole period from a northern Israelite perspective. The history it presents is compressed; it mentions the tribute payment made by Menahem (vv. 19-20) and the northern Assyrian campaign in 733 (v. 29) and concludes with the assassination and replacement of Pekah with Hosea (v. 30) and with the general statement, “In those days (the days of Jotham) the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah” (v. 37).2 Kings 16The account in 2 Kings 16 compliments the previous chapter and provides more details about the events that resulted in the demise of northern Israel. This account describes the confederated invasion of Pekah and Rezin in 736-735 (known as the Syro-Ephraimite war) and the attempt to replace Ahaz with a puppet king (as predicted by Isaiah) thereby creating an anti-Assyrian block. The attack was deliberately timed to coincide with Tiglath-Pileser’s absence in the region, as during this period he was campaigning in the east fighting among the Urartians and Medians. Once again Jerusalem was besieged (v. 5) and Rezin captured Elath (v. 6), but this time Pul responded positively to the appeal by Ahaz, this resulted in the northern campaigns in Israel and Aram-Damascus of 732 and 733 which resulted in downfall of Pekah and Rezin and which are summarily referred to in 2 Kings 15. The two sections of 2 Kings 16 use differing ways of referring to Ahaz (“Ahaz in 16:5-9; “King Ahaz” or “the king” in 16:10-18) and different spellings of the name “Tiglath-Pileser” (rslp tlgt in 16:7; rsalp tlgt in 16:10). It seems that two different sources were used and that they were “joined” by a section (vv. 10-18) that describes Ahaz’s apostasy.Hosea 5:8-6:6In 1919, A. Alt argued that this text reports on a Judean counter-attack against Israel immediately following the end of the siege of Jerusalem. However, P. Arnold has recently offered a detailed refutation of Alt’s theory while maintaining the connection of this text with the general background of the Syro-Ephraimite war. He examines the geographical detail and suggests that the oracle describes an initial Israelite march against Jerusalem.The Primary Assyrian ChroniclesThe Assyrian Chronicles summarised below (with corrected footnotes) are derived from B. E. Kelle, Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), 185f:1. Layard 45b+III R 9, 1 (Tadmor Ann. 2 1): This text is the earliest relevant text of Tiglath-Pileser III and dates to around 743-740 B.C.E. The inscription details the tribute paid by Rezin of Damascus and other neighbouring states but does not mention Samaria. Nonetheless, some scholars maintain that the inscription has lost the phrase “Menahem of the land of Samaria” and it should he restored in the available space.2. Iran Stela: This text is a fragmentary summary inscription found in western Iran. Column II, lines 1-23 preserve a list of Anatolian and Syro-Palestinian rulers on whom Tiglath-Pileser III imposed tribute. This list includes “Menahem of the land of Samaria.” The inscription seems to date to the time of Tiglath-Pileser’s Ulluba campaign in 739-738 because it presupposes a period when the Assyrian army was in Iran and names Tubail as the king of Tyre rather than Hiram, who was involved in the 734-732 campaign.3. Layard 50a+50b+67a: This inscription is a fragmentary annals text that consists of twenty-four lines recording Tiglath-Pileser’s military achievements in his eighth and ninth pale (738-737 and 737-736). The discussion of these achievements includes the receipt of tribute from western states in Syria-Palestine and mentions “Menahem of the city of Samaria.” The text is nearly identical to the Iran Stela and scholars are virtually unanimous in dating the tribute list to 738-737 because of the text’s later reference to the ninth pal?.4. II R 67: This text is a fragment of a long summary inscription of Tiglath-Pileser that summarizes the achievements in his first seventeen pale. Line 11 of the reverse contains a tribute list that mentions “Jehoahaz of the land of Judah”. The tribute list should be dated prior to 733 because it refers to “Mitini of the land of Ashkelon” who was deposed by 733-732. This text is the only reference to Judah in the Assyrian inscriptions prior to 720 B.C.E.5. Layard 29b: There is much debate about whether to reconstruct this text to include a reference to the northern kingdom. The inscription describes Tiglath-Pileser’s campaign against Syro-Ephraimitic states after he left Philistia in 733. The relevant portion of the text is broken but refers to Assyria’s capture of a certain district’s territories in the Galilee region (11. 230ff). The text may be reconstructed to indicate that these territories belonged either to “Bit-[Hazael]” or “Bit-[Humri].” The reconstruction has implications concerning the size and status of the northern kingdom in the waning years of the conflict.6. Layard 66: This text describes events at the end of the Syro-Ephraimitic war. The inscription is a fragmentary annals text that records Assyrian campaigns in the west from 732 to 731, including the subjugation of Queen Shamshi of Arabia. The description in line 228 refers to Tiglath-Pileser’s treatment of “the city of Samaria”. 7. III R 10, 2: This summary inscription from Nimrud also relates to the close of the Syro-Ephraimitic war. However, the text is not chronologically but geographically arranged and comes not from the time of the events themselves but from the period alter Tiglath-Pileser had settled affairs in Syria-Palestine. At this stage in the course of’ events, the Assyrian scribes refer to the land of “Bit-Humri.”8. ND 4301+4305: This final relevant text consists of two fragments of a clay tablet and essentially parallels III R 10, 2. Since this text mentions payment of tribute to Tiglath-Pileser at Sarrabanu in Babylon (1. 10), it seems to come from the time after Tiglath-Pileser had settled affairs in Syria- Palestine and left the region. As with III R 10, 2, this inscription refers to the border of the land of “Bit-Humri” (11. 3-4).The build up to warThe build up to the war should be sought during the reign of Uzziah and his co-regent Jotham rather than in the days of Ahaz. Uzziah rebuilt Elath (2 Chron 26:2) and subjugated the Philistines, Arabians, Mehunims and the Ammonites (vv. 6-8), and built many fortifications. Jotham also built fortifications (2 Chron 27:4) and subjugated the Ammonites to tribute for three years (v. 5). Both Uzziah and Jotham followed the same policy and one suspects that although the successes are attributed to Uzziah, that it was actually his son and co-regent Jotham who implemented the strategies. It was obviously the intention of Uzziah/Jotham to control the major traffic routes — the sea route (coastal route via Philistia), the hill route (route through the Judahite hills), and the king’s route (Transjordanian route via Elath through Ammon). The suggestion is that Judean expansion, the capture of Elath and the three-year vassalage of Ammon occurred in the years 747-745 of the Uzziah/Jotham co-regency (year 746/747 was the first year of Jotham and the forty-first year of Uzziah). Year 746/7 was concurrent with the second year of Menahem and the fifth year of Pekah. Northern Israel had two rival kings for a period with Menahem situated in Samaria and Pekah across the Jordan in Gilead. Galil observes that,“The Gilead is a flexible territorial term, mentioned in the Bible more than 150 times. It often refers to small- and large-scale territories between the Arnon River in the south and the Yarmuk River in the north, and often even represents the Bashan. Determining the extent of the area ruled by Pekah is difficult, but this passage indicates that territories located in Transjordan were included within his kingdom......It is possible then, that Pekah was in charge of an administrative district, which included regions in the Bashan and in the Gilead, much like the son of Geber in the time of Solomon. In light of this proposal the passage in 1 Kgs 15,25 may be reconstructed thus: But Pekah the son of Remaliah, his officer in [the region of] Argob and [in the towns of] Jair, conspired against him. The fact that a company of fifty Gileadean warriors participated in the revolt supports this assumption. Apparently it was an élite unit at the disposal of Pekah, and was presumably used as his personal guard on account of his position as head of a district whose security was highly sensitive, especially around the Israel-Aram border.??? In light of the tight and unique bonds between Pekah and Rezin (which probably began prior to Pekah’s coronation: see 2 Kgs 15,37), it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Gilead was torn away from Israel and annexed to Damascus, in the time of Pekah. Moreover, if the above reconstruction is correct it is safe to assume that the Argob region was also included within the kingdom of Pekah (and not only the Gilead).” Judean control of the Transjordanian trade route and the port of Elath would be perceived as a threat to Pekah and Rezin as would the subjection of Ammon (Gilead’s neighbour) because control of the trade routes would severely impact revenues for both Pekah and Rezin. This would suggest a natural alliance between Rezin and Pekah to wrest control of the trade routes from Judah. Initially, resentment against Judah may have had little to do with forcing Judah to join an anti-Assyrian coalition but that changed after Pul ascended the Assyrian throne (745) and aggressively pushed the borders of the Assyrian empire outwards; over the next 14 years the Assyrian empire expanded from the region between the Euphrates and Tigris to reach almost to the Black Sea and the river Araxes in the north, and the Persian Gulf and northern Israel in the south. After Assyria subjected Pekah and Rezin to tribute payments, it would become even more urgent to capture the trade routes. Menahem raised his tribute in 740 by taxing his nobles, but that was obviously an unpopular move. As yet, Judah was not an Assyrian vassal and Assyria allowed Pekah and Rezin to operate an independent foreign policy until they grew too powerful. Galil concludes that,“Practically, the Assyrians had no fixed policy towards conflicts between their vassals; they rather employed a flexible policy, dealing with each conflict on its own. The reaction was always motivated by the Assyrian interests, depending on circumstances...”Scholars such as J. Begrich believe that the purpose of the Israel-Aram confederation was to force Judah to join an anti-Assyrian coalition: such a war would expose their northern flank to the Assyrians, weakening the coalition. B. Oded, however, picked up the older view of Meissner and maintained that the Syro-Ephraimite war was strictly an inner-Palestinian conflict that had no relation to Assyria. In his view, the conflict was the result of a battle among Syria, Israel, and Judah for control of territories in the Transjordan; previous anti-Assyrian coalitions, such as that formed by Ahab and Ben-Hadad, had not waged war against states that refused to join them; and that Begrich was wrong to dismiss 2 Kgs 15:37, which shows that the Syro-Ephraimite war against Judah began in Jotham’s reign. Instead, Oded argues that an earlier longstanding Israel-Judah alliance against Syria that resulted in joint control over large parts of the Transjordan unravelled when Israel’s power declined during the series of revolutions and assassinations following the reign of Jeroboam II. This situation in turn enabled Uzziah of Judah to exert sole control over these areas, a situation which enabled Rezin of Syria to persuade Israel to ally with them and wrest control of the Transjordan back from Judah, with a second aim of installing Ben-Tabeel on the throne in Jerusalem. This war began during Jotham’s reign and ended when Assyria attacked the Syro-Ephraimite coalition. R. Tomes has recently revitalized Oded’s position and argued that no Assyrian text indicates the reason for the Syro-Ephraimitic attack on Jerusalem and the reason must he surmised from the biblical texts. Synchronizing the accountsOded remarked that it was wrong to dismiss 2 Kgs 15:37, which shows that the Syro-Ephraimite war against Judah began in Jotham’s reign. J. Edmund also observes that, “Rezin and Pekah had been harassing Judah ever since the later years of Ahaz’s father, king Jotham. This would date the beginning of their harassment some time shortly before 742 BCE, before Jotham died, and before Ahaz became king. Therefore, according to the biblical texts, the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis must have been an ongoing crisis for at least ten years or so”. A. K. Laina observes that, “....the account of Isaiah supplements valuable information in understanding some of the details on the event. Notice the break between verse 1 and 2. After stating that “The king Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it,” verse 2 begins afresh “Now the house of David was told, ‘Aram has allied itself with Ephraim’, so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken”. This construction highlights the severity of the new situation and explains why king Ahaz and his people were now in terror. First, the break affirms the circumstances of king Ahaz emphasised in 2 Chron 28:16. Second, the failure of their first individual invasion gives a logical reason for the formation of their alliance. Third, since king Ahaz and his people had already experienced the terror of their first attack, their united attack must have appeared to them invincible. Fourth, the alliances were so sure of their victory that they had designated their puppet king Tabeel to replace Ahaz (v.6) and thus it was a serious situation for Judah”.Moreover, we have recorded in 2 Kgs 15:19 that Pul “came against the land” of Israel during Menahem’s reign and in 2 Chron 28:20 Pul “came against” Ahaz to distress (strike a blow), yet no record of these incursions is found in the Assyrian Chronicles. Galil observes, “The passage 2 Kgs 15, 19-20, which depicts the arrival of the Assyrian king in Israel and the offerings of Menahem, apparently refers to the subjection of Menahem in 740. It appears that Menahem’s reign was unpopular and a bond with Assyria was meant to strengthen the new dynasty in Israel. Indeed, the money owed to Assyria was not paid out of the kingdom’s treasury but collected from the Israelite nobles who probably resisted Menahem. The Assyrian sources do not relate any arrival of Tiglath-Pileser III in Israel in the time of Menahem. Yet it is possible that Tiglath-Pileser III’s inscriptions do not have details of the events of 742-740; consequently, the biblical testimony should not be rejected”. Elsewhere, when commenting on the problematic order of Tiglath-Pileser III’s campaigns in 734-732, Galil offers the following three reasons for the difficulties; (1) the majority of the Assyrian inscriptions are of a summary nature, and the few surviving annalist fragments provide only minor help in determining the order of the campaigns; (2) the Assyrian inscriptions are contradictory; (3) the Biblical testimony is insufficiently clear, and cannot be employed in deciding among the various reconstruction possibilities. The difficulties that Galil recognizes for 734-732 is valid for the whole period from 745 onwards and 2 Kgs 15:19 together with 2 Chron 28:20 probably describe the same incident from Israelite and Judean perspectives. It is therefore methodologically preferable to reconstruct an independent biblical account and only once this is complete to attempt synchronization with Assyrian Chronicles. We reconstruct the sequence of events in the boxes below. The dates are taken from Perry’s ‘Kings Chronology’ and dates with an asterisk (*) are the dates that scholars have determined from the Assyrian records (refer to the maps at the end of the article):7502 Kings 15. Pekah was contemporary with Jotham (vv. 26-27) and from 743 onwards with Jotham’s co-regent Ahaz.747-745Assyria. Pul ascends throne 745*2 Kings 15. In those days (Jotham) the LORD began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah (v. 37) 2 Chron 27. Jotham subjugates Transjordan. (Ammonites) pay tribute 3 years.(v. 5)744/743*Assyria. Anti-Assyrian coalition formed under the leadership of Urartu, Arpad, and Cicilian states, a coalition that included Rezin of Damascus and Hiram of Tyre. Siege of Arpad begins.2 Chron 28. Ahaz becomes co-regent (v.1); {743/4, Perry}Isaiah 7. In days of Ahaz...(v.1)742-740*Assyria. The Assyrian sources contain no evidence of Tiglath-Pileser’s arrival in the land of Israel in the time of Menahem, but the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser are silent regarding events during the years 742-740, and therefore the Biblical testimony is not to be rejected out of hand. Arpad conquered and annexed as first full province of Syria. (740*)2 Chron 28. Judah delivered to Syria AND ALSO to Pekah (v. 5).Isaiah 7. Invasion (s) by Pekah and by Rezin; Jerusalem not conquered (v.1)742-740*2 Chron 28. Spoil and captives taken to Samaria; a remnant sent back under instructions of the prophet Oded. (vv. 8-15)Isaiah 7. Remnant Returns = Shear-jashub (v. 3)740/739Assyria. Isaiah advises against Assyrian coalition: Immanuel (=Hezekiah born)2 Kings 15. Pul in the land. (vv. 19-20)2 Chron 28. Ahaz sends for help to Pul (v. 16); Edomites and Philistines invade (vv. 17-18)Pul in the land distress for Ahaz (v. 20); Ahaz sacrifices to gods of Syria (v. 23 cf. v.2 Baalim)Isaiah 7. Prophetic warning: Philistia=Fly and Assyria=bee (v. 18)Maher-shalal-hash-baz= (Assyrians) quick to plunder, swift to prey (8:1)739*Assyria. Tiglath-Pileser leaves the region: north Syrian states again rebelled against Assyria, this time under the leadership of Tutammu, the king of Unqi, whose capital was Kullani.738*Assyria. Iran Stela; The Assyrian army returns to suppresses the coalition, and receives tribute from the rulers as far south as Rezin of Damscus, Hiram of Tyre, Menahem of Israel, and Zabibe the queen of Arabia2 Kings 15. Menahem pays tribute (vv.19-20) and dies in this year (Perry)736-735* SYRO-EPHRAIMITIC WARAssyria. An alliance of Hiram, ruler of Tyre and Rezin of Damascus. Also, one known as Mitini of Ashkelon broke his oath of allegiance to Assyria. Tiglath-Pileser moves against Philistia to quell the rebellion then returns home. Eponym Chronicle: According to the timing of the chronicle there ended up being a series of campaigns that began in Philistia and subsequently continued through to Damascus in the years 733-732. This would show that the conquering of Damascus was completed in 732/731 for the Chronicle has Tiglath-Pileser in Sapia in southern Babylon in 73l/730)2 Kings 15. Pekah conspires against Pekahiah (Menahem’s successor) supported by Gileadites (v.25) Pekah commences in 52nd year of Uzziah and rules 20 years (v.27)2 Kings 16. Pekah and Rezin besiege Ahaz (v.5)Syrians recover Elath (v.6)Isaiah 7. Rezin and Pekah now confederate as predicted by Isaiah (v.2)729/8*Assyria. In the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser, Ahaz is mentioned by name only in a clay inscription from Calah (K 3751 Tadmor, ITP, Summ. 7, rev., 1.11' , in which “Jehoahaz of Judah” is listed among those presenting tribute to Assyria, along with other kings, including those of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, and the Philistine kings: [Mi]tind of Ashkelon and [Ha] nun of Gaza. This summary inscription was composed after the seventeenth year of Tiglath-Pileser III ( 729/8).2 Kings 16. Ahaz requests Assyrian help, pays tribute(v.7)733-731*Assyria. The Eponym chronicle highlights Tiglath-Pileser’s campaigns into the Damascus. The first conquest relates to that of Damascus. Tiglath-Pileser spends much time in his summary inscription to his defeat of Rezin. Assyrian king decides to shorten his time in Urartu, lift the siege on Tushpa, and direct his forces to the west in order to halt the erosion of the Assyrian position and prevent the expansion of the Aramean-Israelite coalition. Annals 23; Rezin ultimately falls after a prolonged siege into the regnal year 732/731 and is killed.2 Kings 15. In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. (v. 29)2 Kings 16. Pul assists and destroys coalition (v. 9) Ahaz meets Pul in Damascus and copies Assyrian altar (v. 10). Judah now an Assyrian vassalIsaiah 7There are four possibilities for of translating the name ‘Shear-jashub’ (excluding emending the text): a remnant indeed shall repent (turn to YHWH); a remnant indeed shall return (survive); only a remnant shall repent or turn to YHWH; only a remnant shall return or survive. It has been suggested in this article that this “remnant” are the Judean captives sent back at the urging of the prophet Oded, however, J. Day and R. Clements apply the name to the Syrian and Ephraimite survivors of the Assyrian invasion. This seems unlikely as the Immanuel prophecy was directed at the house of David and one assumes that the presence of Shear-jashub had immediate relevance to Ahaz. The prophetic name Shear-jashub is not explained in Isaiah 7 and probably had more than one application as Isa 10:20-23 speaks of an Israelite remnant turning to the “mighty God”; this is the title employed for the “child” in Isa 9:6 who will sit on the Davidic throne (v. 7). These were the faithful remnant who responded to the “great light” (v. 2) of the Hezekiah reformation. There is possibly a further application to Sennacherib, as he boasted of taking more than 200,000 captives and no doubt a remnant was released and returned to the land when the Assyrian army was defeated outside of Jerusalem during Hezekiah’s reign. The chiastic structure of Isaiah 7-9 climaxes with revealing Immanuel as the royal Son, who shines light into the shadow of death:AHistorical prologue (7:1-2)BIn the presence of Shear-jashub (7:3)CJudgment on Aram and Israel (7:4-9)DThe sign of Immanuel (7:10-16).EIn the shadow of Assyria (7:20-25)AHistorical prologue (8:1-2)BThe sign of Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3-4)CJudgment on Judah (8:5-8)DLament of Immanuel (8:8-10)EIn the shadow of Yahweh (8:11-15)AA call to repentance (8:16-17)BThe sign of Isaiah’s children (8:18)CIn the shadow of judgment (8:19-22)DOut of the shadow of death and into the light (9:1-5)EThe Royal Son (9:6-7)The sign offered to Ahaz is regarded by many scholars as a merismus – “in the depth or the height above” (v. 11), in other words the two contrasting extremes are made to stand for the whole – ask for anything in heaven and earth. However, in Gen 49:22-26, the blessings of the deep and of the heavens is messianically associated with fecundity and progeny. In Isa 45:8 a similar idiom is employed with the heavens pictured as pouring down righteousness and the earth opening up to reveal righteousness. The context there is “concerning my sons” (v. 11), particularly, calling by name (vv. 3-4). The Fourth Gospel alludes to the prophecy in Isaiah 7 (earthly things/heavenly things; John 3:12) in the context of being “born from above” with Nicodemus recognising (John 3:2) that Jesus has “God with him” (=Immanuel). Furthermore, the question of origins and legitimacy looms large in the gospel as no one knows where the wind originates or where it is going; so it is with the man of the spirit (John 3:8). Christ’s legitimacy and his origins are questioned throughout the gospel – Jesus’ origins are unknown (born from above) as is his destiny (resurrection from the earth). Thus, both heaven and earth are involved in the messianic sign; the depth and the height. It is therefore not unreasonable to seek the initial fulfilment of the prophecy in Hezekiah who as the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53 was raised from his death bed on the third day. In this sense Hezekiah signified the depth.... “I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue of my years” (Isa 38:10). His “resurrection” from the depth was a sign but his birth was also a messianic sign.The birth of Immanuel was not a miraculous “virgin birth”; it was, however, a supernatural messianic sign. Much debate has raged around the Hebrew hml[ (`alm?); does it mean, 1) virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married? In the original prophetic context, the solution must be sought in one of Ahaz’s wives or concubines, a newly married young virgin who was not even aware that she was pregnant! This new mother would name her child Immanuel, and presumably the news of the unexpected birth reached Ahaz shortly after the prophecy was issued.The “miracle” of the “virgin birth” in Isaiah’s time was the completely unexpected nature of the birth and the fact that divine foreknowledge predicted in advance what was about to happen (Ahaz had no knowledge of the pregnancy and neither did the mother until the delivery!); “Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, ‘Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me’” (Isa 5:11).The mother of Hezekiah was Abijah (2 Chron 29:1), which means Yah is my Father and is an obvious reference to the messianic promise of 2 Sam 7:14 “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”. Hezekiah became the “son” of Yahweh and the (suffering) “servant” of Yahweh in contrast with Ahaz who appealed to Tiglath-Pileser III with the words; “I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me” (2 Kgs 16:7). Ahaz was wont to “pass his sons through the fire” (2 Kgs 16:3 cf. Mic 6:7) and this prophecy stood as a warning (not to touch the child) and a promise (that the Davidic dynasty would be established through Immanuel).The name Immanuel should be understood as an epithet or cognomen (cf. Isa 45:5; “surname”) the name Hezekiah means Yah strengthens. Both of his names are played on in 2 Chron 32:8; “With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God (= Immanuel), to help us and to fight our battles.” And the people were strengthened by the words of Hezekiah (= Yah strengthens) king of Judah.” This in itself indicates that Hezekiah and Immanuel is the same person.Before this Immanuel child was old enough to choose between right or wrong the land would be desolate and both Syria and Ephraim defeated by Assyria. Cultivated land would be overtaken by wild growth and cattle would graze freely in the bush. People would need to take a bow and arrow with them when they went out in the field (for the wild animals) but the wild vegetation would provide fodder for cattle, with the wild flowers producing abundant pollen for the honey bees. As a consequence, the child would eat plenty of butter, yoghurt and honey, usually luxury items.Within sixty-five years Ephraim would be too shattered to be a people (Isa 7:8). Most scholars believe that the prophecy was given during the Syro-Ephraimitic war (735/736) with Samaria destroyed some 12 or 13 years after this oracle (721/722) rather than 65 years later. The most common interpretation of this text is that the phrase in v. 8b was a marginal note merged with the text or a gloss (65 years may refer to the deportations brought about by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal in about 670/69 BCE) Various other suggestions have been made to resolve this problem: Whittaker follows a reading similar to that suggested by the Jerusalem Bible which translates this phrase as “Six or five years more”, but this sequence of numbers would be unique and the manuscripts of the MT do not reveal any variations of the sequence. E. J. Kissane suggests, “Yet six, nay, five years more ...”. However, this article argues that the prophecy was given earlier (circa 740), even so, it does not compute to a 65-year period. It is suggested that the solution should be sought by reckoning retroactively from the beginning of Uzziah’s monarchy. Uzziah was the stabilising feature during this whole period of overlapping co-regencies, and Isaiah commenced his ministry during his reign. From the beginning of Uzziah’s monarchy until the fall of Samaria is 65 years and this is essentially the position that Lightfoot holds.Isaiah’s son not ImmanuelIt is often suggested that Immanuel is one of Isaiah’s sons, possibly even Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This actually raises more problems than it solves; If, (a) hml[ (`alm?) refers to a young woman up to the birth of her first child the she could not be Shear-jashub’s mother; one must assume instead that through death or some other circumstance Isaiah was about to marry another woman: and (b) none of the traditions suggest that Isaiah names this child, whereas he had given the sign-names of his other children. Some scholars suggest that Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel are the same person but in 8:3 his mother is called “the prophetess” not the hml[ (`alm?), furthermore, Maher-shalal-hash-baz would have two prophetic names.Isaiah’s second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8:3), is introduced without preamble in Isa 8:1 and this is understood as implying that “he was retrospectively known to be a fulfilment of the Immanuel prophecy”. However, this is overstating the case as the conception notice in Isa 8:3 is prescient and somewhat parenthetical; it is written from the point of view of an omniscient narrator. The conclusion of the matter is given first (the birth of a son) but this is (obviously) after the matter is recorded and witnessed. Therefore, the order of events is; (1) Isaiah, write concerning swift is booty, speedy is prey. [8.1] then, (2) Isaiah gathers witnesses [8:2] then, (3) Isaiah writes verses 4-22 concerning Assyrian destruction, then; (4) Isaiah has relations with his wife (the prophetess not the virgin) and she conceives another son (besides Shear-jashub) who is called Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This is the only possible order, as it was important to record and witness the “sign” in advance of his wife conceiving in order to establish both the time-frame and the prophetic credentials of the sign. Perry notes that Isaiah mentions Immanuel (God with us) in 8:8 and deconstructs his name in 8:10 and therefore associates Immanuel with his disciples in 8:16 who probably took Immanuel to the royal court to demonstrate the fulfilment of the “sign”. Firstly, the mention of Immanuel in the “spoil” prophecy is not unusual as he was introduced in the previous chapter. Secondly, an association with Isaiah’s disciples is not unusual as one of the “witnesses” to the prophecy was Hezekiah’s maternal grandfather (Zechariah, 2 Chron 29:1 and Isa 8:2). Thirdly, it would be unnecessary to take him into the royal presence, as the young child Hezekiah would already reside at the royal court with his mother as a permanent reminder and “sign”.SummaryThis article has prosecuted the case that Hezekiah is Immanuel. The chronological problem surrounding his birth has been resolved, with the year 740 suggested as his birth year. The period 742-740 is proposed as the time when the incursions of 2 Chronicles 28 (by Ephraim and Aram) against Judea occurred; this was a continuation of hostilities that commenced in the days of Jotham. This was a period of rebellion against Assyria and an opportunity for Pekah and Rezin to recapture the trade routes. During this period, Judea’s neighbours, Philistia and Edom, took advantage of Ahaz’s weakened state and also launched raiding parties. The Assyrian records are silent on the events at this point but the Biblical record does suggest a visit by Assyria to the land. When Tiglath-Pileser III sent a delegation into the region Pekah and Rezin submitted to Assyria (together with Menahem) and they resolved to pay tribute. It is at this point that Isaiah delivers the Immanuel prophecy with the child born almost immediately after his words were spoken (ca. 740) as a sign, with an implicit warning that Assyria cannot be relied on. It seems that Pekah and Rezin (and probably Menahem) made the case before Tiglath-Pileser III that they could not raise enough revenue until the trade routes were liberated from Judean control. Despite the warning from Isaiah a “bribe” was offered by Ahaz, however, Assyria decided that it was commercially more advantageous to support its vassal states against Judea (he struck Ahaz a blow). As yet, Ahaz was still “neutral” and had not become a vassal state and Assyrian self-interest determined to resolve the dispute in favour of its (unruly) vassals. After the Assyrians left the region, Ephraim and Aram decided to formalise their coalition and drive their advantage home by replacing Ahaz with a puppet king who would do their bidding. Whether or not this was an anti-Assyrian move or not is debatable but it was perceived as unacceptable by Assyria as it would grant Israel and Aram too much regional power. Thus, when the Syro-Ephraimitic war was launched in a coordinated fashion in 735/6, Assyria decided to break the regional coalition and accepted the appeal by Ahaz to become a vassal (Judea became a buffer state on the Egyptian border). Hezekiah would have been about 5-6 years old at the commencement of renewed hostilities (735/6) and about 9-10 years old by the time the coalition was defeated (731/2), thus fulfilling the terms of the Immanuel prophecy. Of course, much of this scenario is of necessity speculative but any reconstruction must address the lacunae in both the biblical records and the Assyrian inscriptions. Historically speaking, both sets of records should be given equal weight and the biblical records should not be dismissed as theologically motivated in contrast with the unbiased (sic) Assyrian accounts. Moreover, whereas the Biblical records are interested in events in Judea, the Assyrian records only mention Ahaz incidentally as a vassal, probably as late as 729. This text is the only reference to Judah in the Assyrian inscriptions prior to 720. Judah was therefore relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of Assyrian politics.ConclusionImmanuel is Hezekiah, the wonderful counsellor, prince of peace and mighty God, but also the suffering servant – the one called by name from the womb – the one who foreshadowed the Messiah.MapsThe maps are below: Map (1) Jeroboam II and Uzziah: background 2 Chronicles 26&27 produced from the Atlas of Jewish History, (Dan Cohn-Sherbok, 1994), 26 Map (2) is the Syro-Ephraimitic war 735/736 (not to scale) background 2 Kings 16Map (3) Assyrian campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III (not to scale) for the period 744-732, background 2 Kings 15&16; 2 Chronicles 28 and Isaiah 7, is an amalgam from The Times Concise Atlas of the Bible (Harper Collins, 1991), and the inset (not to scale) is produced with help from Nelsons Complete Book of Bible Maps & Charts, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. TN); Holman QuickSource Bible Atlas, (Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, TN) Editorial Policies: The Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation seeks to fulfil the following objectives: offer analytical and expositional articles on biblical texts; engage with academic biblical studies that originate in the various Christian confessions; defend the biblical principles summarised in the common Christadelphian statements of faith; and subject the published articles to peer review and amendment.Submission of Articles: Authors should submit articles to the editors. Presentation should follow Society of Biblical Literature guidelines ().Publication: E-mailed quarterly on the last Thursday of January, April, July, and October; published as a collected annual paperback obtainable from: willowpublications.Subscriptions: This is a ‘free’ EJournal to churches and individuals who recognise that it is produced within the Christadelphian community. EJournal Book Fund: A fund exists for small book grants for baptised young people who are unwaged. Details can be found on the EJournal website: christadelphian-. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download