This was originally written for my Covenant Theology II class. The paper focuses on Paul's use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4.
One of the most interesting and difficult passages in the New Testament is Ephesians 4:8. What complicates the passage is not the obscurity of its interpretation, but the textual issues. Ephesians 4:8 is one of the many Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, but it presents difficulties that many of those other quotations do not. In Ephesians 4:8 Paul has chosen to change the wording of Psalm 68:18 in a way that seems contradictory upon initial examination. The Psalm says, "You ascended on high/leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there."
Paul's quote in Ephesians 4:8, on the other hand, says, "Therefore it says, 'When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,/and he gave gifts to men." Not only did Paul shift from second to third person pronouns, he apparently changed the verb "received" to "gave." At first glance this problem seems intractable. How might it be resolved? I propose that Paul wrote Ephesians 4:8 with a specific interpretive tradition in mind, and that his quotation of Psalm 68:18 is best called midrash pesher. I will proceed by first examining Psalm 68:18 in its original context, then doing the same for Ephesians, and finally determining what purpose the passage served in the original community of readers.
This thesis is important because the reliability of the Word of God is at stake. If Paul's quotation proves to be faulty, then the Bible becomes suspect. This paper should not only set the Christian's mind at ease regarding Biblical authority, but it should also help renew our commitment to the unity of the body of Christ, as this is a strong theme in the passage.
Psalm 68:18 in Context
Psalm 68 is itself an oft-examined passage in the Old Testament. Commentary after commentary speak of the difficulty of its interpretation. Marvin Tate says its problems are "almost legendary."[1] James Mays agrees, noting "[i]t has an unusual density of uncertain texts, rare words, allusive language, and shifting styles.”[2]
Psalm 68 is called "A Psalm of David," but its odd, seemingly disconnected structure has led many commentators to deny not only Davidic authorship, but also the existence of the Psalm in David's time. Tate says the Psalm is "probably post-exilic in its present form, but certainly contains traditional material from earlier periods."[3] Erhard Gerstenberger also recommends an exilic or post-exilic background.[4] Konrad Schaeffer does not take a strong position, saying that the poem's content is ambiguous and applicable to "any generation of God's chosen people."[5]
It seems as though the consensus of critical scholarship denies the authorial claims made by the Psalm 68's heading. Many scholars, however, simply begin with the assumption that all such headings are "later midrashic additions."[6] I see no reason to accept that assumption, however, so I will posit Davidic authorship from the outset.
Having established Davidic authorship, it would be helpful to determine the events surrounding the composition of the Psalm. Two events have been suggested as likely occasions for Psalm 68. The first is the coming of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem from Obed-Edom in 2 Samuel 6. This is the view tentatively espoused by Kidner.[7] Others, such as Delitzsch, would like to place the Psalm after a major military victory, particularly that over the Syrians and Ammonites in 2 Samuel 10.[8] Either occasion is acceptable, as both allow for Davidic authorship.
Additionally, both occasions explain the tone of the Psalm, which is that of celebration and victory in war, with God as the victor. Calvin said, "it was David's design to celebrate the victories which, through the blessing of God, he had gained over his enemies."[9] This is evident even in the opening verse of the Psalm: "God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered/and those who hate him shall flee before him!" (ESV)
It is also important, though, to look within the Psalm and see what part v. 18 played because it will otherwise be impossible to correctly understand Ephesians 4:8. David wrote, "You ascended on high,/leading a host of captives in your train/and receiving gifts among men,/even among the rebellious,/that the Lord God may dwell there." (ESV)
The verse pictures God as the conquering king. He has marched through the nations, defeating them all. This means that even the most rebellious nations in the world are left with no option but to give tribute to God.[10] It is not difficult to imagine the impact this passage must have had on the first audience. The nation would have been rejoicing in the wake of David's victory, but the king himself uses his poetic gifts to point to the one who truly brought the victory. He publicly proclaimed that the people of God had won because of their allegiance to God.
Ephesians 4:8 in Context
How might I now discover the manner in which Paul uses Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8? I will first examine the general argument of the book. From there I will move to 4:8, which references Psalm 68:18. I will determine what role the verse plays in the overall argument of the Ephesians, thereby discovering the way in which Paul uses the reference.
The first thing to note about the book of Ephesians is that it is one of the least specific settings in the Bible.[11] Whereas books like Colossians and the Corinthian epistles have specific situations Paul wrote to address, Ephesians is more general. It is possible, however, to point out an overarching theme to the letter. O'Brien argues that Ephesians focuses on cosmic reconciliation and unity in Christ.[12] His arguments seem sound, so I agree with him here.
The epistle is also divided up into a theological portion, covering chapters 1-3, and an ethical portion, covering chapters 4-6.[13] Though this division is not hard and fast, it can still be helpful in thinking through Ephesians. The passage I am specifically considering is in the beginning of the ethical portion, in which Paul calls the Ephesians to "walk in a manner worthy of the calling which you have been called" (4:1). Paul is exhorting the readers of this letter to maintain the unity of the church. Here in verses 5-6 he writes his famous statement that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (ESV). In verse 7 Paul goes on to emphasize the grace that every Christian has received from Christ, saying that it is "according to the measure of [Christ's] gift." This leads us directly to the quotation of Psalm 68:18, which Paul is using to support the idea that Christ has given us each a gift of grace. In verse 8 Paul writes, "Therefore it says, 'When he ascended on high he lead a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.'"
The chief interpretive difficulty becomes apparent immediately. When we looked at the Psalm itself above, verse 18 stated that it was God who was receiving gifts from men. For some reason Paul has altered the wording here. Neither the MT nor the LXX contain Paul's wording. Theories abound on why Paul made this change, so I would like to look at a few.
Calvin has an interesting take on the passage. He writes:
…Paul purposely changed the word, and employed it, not as taken out of the Psalm, but as an expression of his own, adapted to the present occasion. Having quoted from the Psalm a few words descriptive of Christ's ascension, he adds, in his own words, and gave gifts ,—for the purpose of drawing a comparison between the greater and the less (emphasis in original).[14]
Calvin is saying that Paul's wording was designed to contrast the victories of the people of God in the Old Testament with the greatest victory of all, Christ's ascension. I respect Calvin a great deal, but I am forced to disagree with him. The passage is not focusing on the difference between the victories of ancient Israel and of Christ's ascension, but of the gift giving itself. The passage is an exhortation toward Christian unity, and Calvin's explanation does not fit that context. Some more interesting theories have arisen in more recent scholarship.
Rudolf Schnackenburg suggests that Paul derived his interpretation of Psalm 68 from a specific tradition in Judaism. He thinks it is unlikely that Paul shaped the quote himself for three reasons. First, "…[Paul's] own work lies in the interpretation (9-11) and this begins obviously with a form of the text handed down," second, "he quotes expressly also in 5.14 and 5.31 f. offers only a special explanation of scriptural quotation taken over verbatim…" and finally, "there are traces of an understanding of the text which presuppose 'he gave' instead of 'he took.'" The Psalm would be understood as saying that God received gifts for humanity rather than from humanity, and that these gifts were to be given to Moses to give to Israel.[15] Markus Barth refers to this interpretation as a possibility as well.[16]
Peter O'Brien also addresses the above view in his commentary on Ephesians. "…[I]t has been claimed that Paul has taken over the textual tradition in the Targum ('you gave'), and employed a common technique of early Jewish hermeneutics, known as midrash pesher, in which his exposition of the text in the light of its fulfillment in Christ is integrated into the actual quotation." [17] In this instance Christ would be supplanting Moses as the subject of the Psalm. This interpretation has the advantage of fitting the context of Christian unity. Christ's gift is grace, in contrast to Moses' gift of the Torah, and the gifts of ministry that Paul goes on to mention in verses 11-16 are "for building up the whole body…not heavenly secrets for an elite few." [18]
O'Brien lists several other interpretations that have been put forward. He mentions the idea that Paul simply misquoted the Psalm. This severely damages the integrity of Scripture, so it cannot be accepted. He also suggests that Paul was quoting from memory and there was therefore a small discrepancy, but it does not seem appropriate to call a switch from second to third person pronouns and the "receive/give" change "small." As O'Brien states, the change is " much too deliberate and striking." [19]
One final possibility O'Brien mentions is that God actually received the gifts in Psalm 68:18 in order to give them back. On this understanding it was always God's plan to distribute these gifts among his people. This would exonerate Paul from the accusation of misusing Scripture for his own ends because he would have communicated the true sense of the original passage. O'Brien attributes this view to G.V. Smith, in his article "Paul's Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8."[20] Smith claims that Psalm 68 is itself echoing an earlier scripture, namely Numbers 8 and 18. Specifically in 18:6 it says, "And behold, I have taken your brothers the Levites from among the people of Israel. They are a gift to you, given to the Lord, to do the service of the tent of meeting" (ESV). This would move Ephesians 4:8 away from midrash pesher and into a commentary on Psalm 68:18 in light of the Numbers passages, which David, on this view, had in mind when he wrote the Psalm anyway.[21]
O'Brien likes Smith's proposal, though he does not fully commit to it.[22] I remain skeptical of it, however, because the connection to the Numbers passage is tenuous. It is possible to say that all three passages refer to God receiving and giving gifts, but to build a bridge between the three stretches credulity. I admit that Smith's proposal does solve a number of problems for the passage, but the cost, in my opinion, is too high. His proposal does not have enough support to hold together.
Though it would be foolish to be dogmatic, I believe that given the evidence the midrash pesher interpretation is the best option. As I indicated above, the other explanations have either dismissed the textual integrity of the Bible or led to conclusions that are unwarranted since they are neither from the text nor justified logical extensions of the text. This is not to say, however, that the midrash pesher interpretation is free from criticism.
In his article, "Cosmic Lordship and Divine-Gift Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4," Timothy Gombis provides several daunting criticisms. One of the chief criticisms is that there is no trace on anti-Mosaic polemic in the book of Ephesians. "The giving of gift is not set in opposition to the giving of the law by Moses, nor is the reception of the law in view in Ephesians at all."[23]
I think, however, that Gombis fails to take into account how the argument of Ephesians is working here. He holds that Ephesians 4 is better connected with the end of chapter two, and that the entirety of chapter three is a digression.[24] He bases this on the theory that there is a 'divine warfare motif' operating throughout Ephesians, but especially in chapter two. The 'divine warfare motif' follows a pattern: conflict, victory, kingship, victory shout, house-building, procession, and celebration. Gombis uses Marduk's warfare with Tiamat as an example divine warfare.[25] This leads me to a few criticisms of Gombis' thesis.
Gombis asserts that divine warfare is a common motif in the Ancient Near East, which it well may be.[26] I wonder, though, why he chose to use the example of Marduk and Tiamat? Surely his case would have been further supported by choosing an example that might have been more familiar to the people in Ephesus? I question whether the people to whom Paul was writing would have been more familiar with an Ancient Near East divine warfare motif or the teaching of Moses. If it is the latter then it makes more sense to understand Ephesians in the midrash pesher sense.
A second criticism is that Gombis requires an unnecessary division in the flow of Ephesians. In reading the epistle I found the argument to flow smoothly from chapter to chapter. Paul moves from our being built together as a temple in the end of chapter two to the mystery of the Jews and Gentiles being united in chapter three. There is certainly a transition around the close of chapter three and the opening of chapter four, but the more common understanding that this is the division between the mostly doctrinal and mostly ethical portions of Ephesians makes clearer sense and is to be preferred. The only way in which I could see understanding chapter three as a digression is by viewing it through a preconceived framework which forces you into that interpretation. I think Gombis has, unfortunately, fallen into that trap.
This leads us back to the criticism that there is no Anti-Mosaic polemic in Ephesians. It is true that Paul is not explicitly attacking Moses or the Law, but what do we know about what he actually is doing? As has been noted above, one of the chief themes of Ephesians is unity in Christ. Chapter three began with the mystery God had revealed to Paul, which was that the Gentiles were to be included in the body of Christ. The rest of the chapter refers back to that mystery until finally, in chapter four, Paul begins his exhortation to practical unity. We begin to see now how Paul is using this Psalm with reference to Moses.
Having previously stated that Gentiles and Jews are together in Christ, he goes on to assert the supremacy of Christ and his grace by quoting Psalm 68:18. There is no need for the Gentiles to feel like second-class citizens because Christ's ascension and gift of Grace are better than Moses' ascension and gift of the Law. The so-called anti-Mosaic polemic is not immediately evident because the main focus of the passage is on the practical unity that comes with being in Christ.
Conclusion
I am not foolish enough to claim that I have arrived at an iron-clad solution to the problem of Ephesians 4:8. Too many brilliant minds have gone before me and disagreed for that. I do think, however, that given the original understanding of Psalm 68:18, coupled with the purpose for which Ephesians was written, understanding Ephesians as midrash pesher is the best of all available options.
Works Cited
Barth, Markus. Ephesians 4-6. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974.
Calvin, John. Psalms 36-9. Calvin's Commentaries. 22 Volumes. Translated by James Anderson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.
--. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Calvin's Commentaries. 22 Volumes. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.
Delitzsch, Franz. Psalms Commentary on the Old Testament. 10 Volumes. Translated by James Martin. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms, Part 2 and Lamentations. The Forms of Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
Gombis, Timothy G. "Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift-Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8." Novum Testamentum 47 (no 4 2005): 367-380.
Kidner, Derek. Psalms 1-72. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester, England/Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973.
Mays, James L. Psalms. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994.
O'Brien, Peter Thomas. The Letter to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.
Schaeffer, Konrad. Psalms. Berit Olam Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary. Translated by Helen Herron. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990.VanGemeren, Willem A., Psalms. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.
[1] Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 170.
[2] James L. Mays, Psalms, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994), 225.
[3] Tate, Psalms 51-100, 174.
[4] Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2 and Lamentations, The Forms of Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 174.
[5] Konrad Schaeffer, Psalms, Berit Olam Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001), 165.
[6] Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 5:19.
[7] Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester, England/Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973), 238.
[8] Franz Delitzsch, Psalms, Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 5:246.
[9] John Calvin, Psalms 36-92, Calvin's Commentaries, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 5/3:4.
[10] Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 5:449.
[11] Peter Thomas O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 49.
[12] Ibid, 58.
[13] Ibid, 66.
[14] John Calvin, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Calvin's Commentaries, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 21:273.
[15] Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd., 1991), 177.
[16] Markus Barth, Ephesians 4-6 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974), 475.
[17] Peter O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 290.
[18]Ibid.,, 290.
[19] Ibid, 289-290
[20] G.V. Smith, "Paul's Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8,"JETS 18 (1975): 181-189.
[21] Peter O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 292-293.
[22] Ibid., 293.
[23] Timothy G. Gombis, "Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift-Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8." Novum Testamentum 47 (no 4 2005): 370.
[24] Ibid.,
[25] ibid., 374.
[26] Ibid., 374.
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Friday, December 15, 2006
Understanding The Bronze Serpent Story in Numbers
Explore Your Assumptions About the Text
The bronze serpent story in Numbers 21:4-9 is one of the more famous stories in the Old Testament. I have heard many sermons on this text, yet I still do not have a good grasp on its significance. Most if not all of those sermons focused on the story's relation to the crucifixion of Christ. As the semester has progressed I have become very interested in understanding Biblical narratives in their original context. Why would Moses have included this story if its only significance was as a picture of the crucifixion? There must have been an original intent, and I want to find it.
As I read the story I noticed the importance of following God's commands in faith. Those who were bitten by the serpents would die if they did not look at the bronze serpent, but there is no sensible connection between the act of looking and physical healing, or at least not from a 21st Century perspective. In order to live, the ancient Israelites had to believe God's Word and obey.
Maligning God's provision is also an important aspect of the story. In verse 5 the Israelites call the manna God sent "worthless food." God sends the fiery serpents in response, and it is difficult to understand how to apply this punishment. Vague answers warning us not to treat God's provision as worthless do not satisfy because they do not grapple with the text. This first application is obvious, but what more is there to be said? Is the fact that God sent fiery serpents significant? I know that I have treated God's provision lightly, and that others have as well, but we have not all suffered the fate of these Israelites. What made that situation different? What sort of help might be provided by investigating the context into which this story was delivered?
Another interesting aspect of the text is the bronze serpent itself. A cursory reading of the text provides no clue as to God's reason for commanding Moses to forge it, yet I have difficulty believing no such reason exists. The only clue is that there were also serpents involved in the chastisement, but that does not provide much help.
Preliminary Summary: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
Examine the Text With Guidance Toward its Original Significance
Clarify Your Understanding of the Original Setting and Purposes of the Book.
It seems that the presuppositions of the commentator are one of the most important factors in how he or she dates the book of Numbers. For instance, in his commentary, John Sturdy subscribes to source-criticism theory. Proceeding from an assumption of its accuracy he dates the J source at about 950 BC, and P around 450 BC.[1] Gordon Wenham's commentary, however, presents a very different picture. Rather than assuming a source-critical methodology, Wenham engages a number of arguments to establish a probable date range for the book's composition. He particularly attacks the late date for the so-called 'P material.' He points out that a number of institutions that figured prominently in the P material, such as the ark and the Urim and Thummim, had disappeared by the post-exilic era. He also points out that much of the technical terminology of the P material was obsolete after the 7th century. Comparison with Ezekiel and Deuteronomy lead Wenham to choose the 7th century as the latest date for Numbers.[2]
Wenham push for an even earlier date for Numbers by producing no fewer than thirteen arguments for its antiquity. For example, the Hebrew encampment was square with the Tabernacle, which was the divine king's tent, in the middle. This was the practice of 13th century Egyptians, and not for later nations like the Assyrians. The descriptions of cultural artifacts and literary forms were also more in line with a second-millennium date. Taking all this into consideration, Wenham suggests that we give the tradition of Mosaic authorship the benefit of the doubt.[3]
In determining the original pastoral purposes of Numbers it is now obvious that we cannot side with the proponents of source-criticism. The author was Moses, not J or P, and the audience was an ancient one. The question is, however, was the audience the Exodus generation or their children? The best answer to this question is provided by the text itself. Numbers contains the stories of the failures of the Exodus generation and the resulting judgments. This indicates that it is the children's generation Moses had in mind. This generation was actually entering the Promised Land and needed first to be assured that God was on their side. Just because their parents' generation died didn't mean God had abandoned the entire nation. They also needed to be reminded of the price of disobedience. There are a number of laws given in the book of Numbers and the book also provided examples of the cost of disregarding those laws.
Attend to the Literary Shape of the Episode
Numbers 21:4-9 opens with a broad, fast-moving statement about the Israelites traveling around Edom. The pace is slowed and the scope is narrowed quickly when the opening problem of the passage is presented. This problem is the impatience of the people of Israel (v. 4). This impatience then leads to grumbling against God and Moses in verse 5. The people complain about the lack of good food and water, and say that the food they do have is "worthless." In response to their complaint, God sends judgment in the form of "fiery serpents" (v. 6). This is the turning point of the story. After this
judgment the people change dramatically. They are the only dynamic characters in the story, because they realize that they have sinned against God and Moses and are humbled. They look to Moses, who they had earlier criticized and asked him to pray for them.
The strength of Moses' character is revealed by his response to the request of the people. He does just as they asked without complaint. There is a contrast between Moses and the people: When in trying circumstances (v. 4-5) the people complain and question Moses' leadership and God's providence. Moses does not answer back in kind. In fact, only God acts in response to their complaint. Once the people are repentant, Moses does not allow their past attacks to stop him from praying for them. He makes no complaint, but does as they ask (v. 7). Though it is not specifically stated, from the narrator sets Moses as the example.
Further into the story, Moses acts in a godly fashion again by obeying the Lord's command. God resolves the conflict by telling Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. Anyone who is bitten by a serpent need only look at the bronze serpent and they will live. This 'look and live' phrase is emphasized by repetition in vv. 8-9. Wenham suggests this repetition emphasizes the physical contact of looking as analogous to the touching of the sacrificial animal required in other Old Testament cleansing rituals. Without the physical contact, the sacrifice is ineffective.[4] At this point the scope has broadened and time has quickened again. The scope is focused on the nation as a whole and the time in which the remaining action takes place is nonspecific.
Summarize the Original Significance of the Story
It is difficult to determine how Numbers 21:4-9 serves the larger book of Numbers because at first blush Numbers does not seem to have much purpose. It can look like a smattering of legal texts and narratives that could not fit anywhere else. This is, however, a false impression. According to Wenham the book is highly structured, with the legal portions operating on several levels. First, they teach how Israel is to behave once they are in the land, and second, they function as evidence that the land promises will be fulfilled.[5] Why give a bunch of nomads a book of laws on how to live when they settle in a land unless it is certain that they are settling?
The narrative portions of Numbers describe the journey to the land itself. Specifically, 21:4-9 is the last instance of the Israelites complaining about their food.[6] This had occurred previously in Numbers 11 and judgment ensued. It did again, but God's grace was demonstrated because they were allowed to move forward with the campaign after their repentance.
The sinfulness of man and the graciousness of God are strong themes from the covenant relationship. As is always the case, it is God who works the reconciliation after we mess things up. Yet, as always, God is faithful to his promises. He told Abraham his descendents would have the land, and God took them there in spite of their failures.
Original Significance: The original significance of this passage was to show the continuing faithfulness of God and the continuing sinfulness of men. This is a repetitive cycle, but it also gave the audience a warning against such rebellion against God.
Trace Biblical Elaborations of the Text Through the Canon
There is not much specific reference to Numbers 21:4-9 in the other books of the Old Testament. The bronze serpent itself is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:4. Hezekiah destroyed the serpent, then called 'Nehushtan,' during his reforms because the Israelites had begun worshipping it. Beyond that I could find no mention of the story.
The three characters of the story, the Israelites, God, and Moses, are obviously mentioned throughout the Old Testament. The Israelites are often shown to be impatient and prone to complaint, as they are in the Numbers passage. In Exodus 16:2-3 and 17:1-3 the Israelites grumble for food and drink, respectively. Earlier in the book of Numbers itself the Israelites make a similar complaint. In 14:1-4 they again grumble against both God and Moses. This cycle of unfaithfulness calls into mind the cycle of rebellion in the book of Judges. Both occurred because of the persistent sinfulness of the Israelites.
These stories emphasize some facets of God's character as well. In all three instances God is shown to be merciful and two of three show God's judgment. In the Exodus passages the people grumble for lack of food (16:3) and water (17:2-3). They were certainly sinning in doing so, but God was merciful on both occasions, providing for their needs. Numbers 14 is heavy with judgment since this is the passage in which God tells the Exodus generation they will not enter the land (v. 20-23), but even here He shows His mercy. Earlier God shows what He could have done when He offers to disinherit the Israelites and make a nation of Moses (v. 11-12). After Moses' intercession (v. 13-19) God pronounces His judgment, but also promises to allow the children of the Exodus generation into the land. In Numbers 21 God begins His action with a judgment, the sending of the serpents (v. 6), but He ends with mercy, giving the people an opportunity for healing (vv. 8-9).
The compassion and intercession of Moses is featured prominently in two of the aforementioned stories. On all three occasions Moses comes before the Lord with the complaints of the people. He prays in Numbers 14 that God will not destroy the people of Israel even though God would have made him a great nation. In Numbers 21 the judgment of God has already fallen upon the Israelites, and when they are repentant Moses goes before the Lord with their request for deliverance. In all of these stories we see the mercy of Moses alongside the mercy of God. This gives legitimacy to Moses' role as God's messenger.
The most famous biblical reference to the Numbers 21:4-9 story is found in John 3. It is also the only New Testament reference to the story and Christ uses it as a picture of his crucifixion. In verse 14 Jesus says that he must be "lifted up" as Moses lifted the bronze serpent in the wilderness. It is plain that Jesus' focus is on the serpent's God-given power to heal because of his statement in verse 15: "…that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." Looking to the serpent brought physical life (Numbers 21:8,9), but believing in Jesus brings eternal life.
How Does the Episode You Are Studying Function in Relation to Other Chapters of the Biblical Storyline?
The biblical storyline should be viewed in a 'Creation-Fall-Redemption- Consummation' framework.[7] At least two of these 'chapters' throw light on the Numbers 21:4-9 narrative. The story begins with a confirmation of the Fall. The Israelites are characterized by impatience and complaint. They grumble not only against their leader Moses, but also against the God who appointed him. God had steadily provided for them, yet they called His provision "worthless" (v. 5). The result here is the same as the result of the original Fall: a curse. God sends poisonous serpents among the people, bringing death (v. 6). The people have no hope on their own, but they realize they have done wrong and ask Moses to intercede for them (v. 7).
Now the story moves from the confirmation of the Fall to the execution of redemption. Through the bronze serpent, God provides a means of delivery from death (vv. 8-9). In one small story we see both fall and redemption.
What Would Be Lost if Your Episode Did Not Appear in the Biblical Story?
If Numbers 21:4-9 did not appear in the biblical story there would be two major losses. First, the story completes a tripartite cycle in Exodus and Numbers that highlights man's continued sinfulness and God's continued grace.[8] Strictly speaking, both of these are present in other episodes, but the tripartite literary device adds beauty and emphasis. Perhaps the greatest loss, however, would be the loss of the rich redemptive imagery Christ uses in John 3. His use of the bronze serpent imagery certainly resonated with Nicodemus and provides us with insight on the nature of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
Come Under the Coaching of Other Christian Interpreters Who Apply this Text
Throughout the centuries it seems that Numbers 21:4-9 has only had a few types of application. I was interested to see that both Luther and Calvin applied this text with reference to sacraments. For instance, Calvin says that along with receiving manna and the water from the rock, the bronze serpent was a sacrament. He goes on to say that this regular variation should have told the Jews that they were not to hold on to these practices, but to wait for something better and more abiding. These better things are, of course, the two Christian sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism.[9]
Luther, while staying with the theme of sacraments, applies the text differently. He uses the brass serpent as a weapon against "sacramentarians." Accusing such people of seeking the Spirit apart from the Word, he says they would want to see the serpent held up on the pole but not bother with the Word of God that came with it.[10]
Not surprisingly, Catholic commentator Robert Culley takes a different approach to the text. Culley focuses on the "punishment…followed by a rescue or mitigation"[11] in the text. When the text is combined with other narratives in Numbers, one strong application is that God should never be provoked. His punishments are often deadly. Yet, this particular story intrigued Culley because the rescue actually draws more attention than the punishment.[12] He does not elaborate on that theme.
Gordon Keddie takes a similar approach as Culley. He claims the snakes were meant to teach the Israelites that rebelling against God will lead to their death, and that there was no hope for them to rescue themselves. Any salvation would be of grace and grace alone.[13] Keddie believes that "[t]he bronze snake preached gospel grace to Israel and speaks to us of Jesus, the only Saviour of sinners like ourselves."[14] Here, of course, Keddie is referring to Christ's use of Numbers 21:4-9 in John 3. It is useful to point out this both applications although the first was originally to Israel. Christians can still understand and appropriate the truth for our own context.
Unlike other sources I found, the Westminster Confession of Faith did not refer specifically to the Numbers passage. I was, however, able to draw an interesting connection between the Israelites in Numbers and the Church in the Confession. Both Israel and the Church represent the covenant community, and as such what is said about one will often apply to the other. Chapter 25.5 states "[t]he purest churches under heaven are subject to both mixture and error."[15] Israel in Numbers, like the church today, had people in the covenant community with rebellious hearts. This is what lead to the terrible offense when the Israelites called God's provision worthless. It should give us cause for thought as well because we are not so different from them. The book of Numbers shows over and over that mankind is marred by the Fall, so we are capable of just such a rebellion. When we cry out against God in our hearts, this one statement of the Confession should stand as a warning.
Evaluate Your Preliminary Summary of the Text's Significance
When I began this paper I wanted a deeper understanding of the significance of Numbers 21:4-9. I thought I had a superficial one, but was eager to see what deeper investigation might reveal. My original summary of the text's significance was: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
I find that to be a fairly accurate assessment of the text. I would change the original audience from "the Exodus community" to "the children of the Exodus community." What has changed is my appreciation for the literary structure and the emphasis that it places on the sinfulness of men and the graciousness of God. I better understand the passage's place in the overall narrative of Scripture.
Taking the literary factors into consideration, I might word the significance like this: "Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the children of the Exodus community of their own rebelliousness and sinfulness while also strongly emphasizing that God is gracious and faithful to keep His promises even in the midst of our sin." This does a better job highlighting the story's role in the larger biblical storyline because it takes the other stories of grumbling and rebellion into consideration, broadening the scope of application.
I am still curious about the significance of the serpent as a symbol in ancient Israel. I did find some intriguing theories about its significance, but I was not able to devote much time to that. I would also love to investigate the literary structure of Numbers and the Pentateuch as a whole in order to better grasp how it coheres.
Endnotes[1] John Sturdy, Numbers, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 4.
[2] Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series (Leicester, Eng: Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 22-24.
[3] Ibid., 24
[4] Ibid., 158
[5] Ibid., 14,15
[6] Ibid., 157
[7] Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 1, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
[8] Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series, 16-17.
[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2:1447.
[10] Martin Luther, Luther's Works, trans. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 54:97.
[11] Robert C. Culley, "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers," in Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990), 30.
[12] Ibid., 31.
[13] Gordon J. Keddie, According to Promise: The Message of the Book of Numbers (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1992), 147-148.
[14] Ibid., 148.
[15]Westminster Confession of Faith (Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990), 84.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 2. Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Culley, Robert C., "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers." In Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch, 25-31. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990.
Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, 55 vols. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Vol. 54. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.
Sturdy, John. Numbers, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series. Leicester, England, Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class lecture notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
The bronze serpent story in Numbers 21:4-9 is one of the more famous stories in the Old Testament. I have heard many sermons on this text, yet I still do not have a good grasp on its significance. Most if not all of those sermons focused on the story's relation to the crucifixion of Christ. As the semester has progressed I have become very interested in understanding Biblical narratives in their original context. Why would Moses have included this story if its only significance was as a picture of the crucifixion? There must have been an original intent, and I want to find it.
As I read the story I noticed the importance of following God's commands in faith. Those who were bitten by the serpents would die if they did not look at the bronze serpent, but there is no sensible connection between the act of looking and physical healing, or at least not from a 21st Century perspective. In order to live, the ancient Israelites had to believe God's Word and obey.
Maligning God's provision is also an important aspect of the story. In verse 5 the Israelites call the manna God sent "worthless food." God sends the fiery serpents in response, and it is difficult to understand how to apply this punishment. Vague answers warning us not to treat God's provision as worthless do not satisfy because they do not grapple with the text. This first application is obvious, but what more is there to be said? Is the fact that God sent fiery serpents significant? I know that I have treated God's provision lightly, and that others have as well, but we have not all suffered the fate of these Israelites. What made that situation different? What sort of help might be provided by investigating the context into which this story was delivered?
Another interesting aspect of the text is the bronze serpent itself. A cursory reading of the text provides no clue as to God's reason for commanding Moses to forge it, yet I have difficulty believing no such reason exists. The only clue is that there were also serpents involved in the chastisement, but that does not provide much help.
Preliminary Summary: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
Examine the Text With Guidance Toward its Original Significance
Clarify Your Understanding of the Original Setting and Purposes of the Book.
It seems that the presuppositions of the commentator are one of the most important factors in how he or she dates the book of Numbers. For instance, in his commentary, John Sturdy subscribes to source-criticism theory. Proceeding from an assumption of its accuracy he dates the J source at about 950 BC, and P around 450 BC.[1] Gordon Wenham's commentary, however, presents a very different picture. Rather than assuming a source-critical methodology, Wenham engages a number of arguments to establish a probable date range for the book's composition. He particularly attacks the late date for the so-called 'P material.' He points out that a number of institutions that figured prominently in the P material, such as the ark and the Urim and Thummim, had disappeared by the post-exilic era. He also points out that much of the technical terminology of the P material was obsolete after the 7th century. Comparison with Ezekiel and Deuteronomy lead Wenham to choose the 7th century as the latest date for Numbers.[2]
Wenham push for an even earlier date for Numbers by producing no fewer than thirteen arguments for its antiquity. For example, the Hebrew encampment was square with the Tabernacle, which was the divine king's tent, in the middle. This was the practice of 13th century Egyptians, and not for later nations like the Assyrians. The descriptions of cultural artifacts and literary forms were also more in line with a second-millennium date. Taking all this into consideration, Wenham suggests that we give the tradition of Mosaic authorship the benefit of the doubt.[3]
In determining the original pastoral purposes of Numbers it is now obvious that we cannot side with the proponents of source-criticism. The author was Moses, not J or P, and the audience was an ancient one. The question is, however, was the audience the Exodus generation or their children? The best answer to this question is provided by the text itself. Numbers contains the stories of the failures of the Exodus generation and the resulting judgments. This indicates that it is the children's generation Moses had in mind. This generation was actually entering the Promised Land and needed first to be assured that God was on their side. Just because their parents' generation died didn't mean God had abandoned the entire nation. They also needed to be reminded of the price of disobedience. There are a number of laws given in the book of Numbers and the book also provided examples of the cost of disregarding those laws.
Attend to the Literary Shape of the Episode
Numbers 21:4-9 opens with a broad, fast-moving statement about the Israelites traveling around Edom. The pace is slowed and the scope is narrowed quickly when the opening problem of the passage is presented. This problem is the impatience of the people of Israel (v. 4). This impatience then leads to grumbling against God and Moses in verse 5. The people complain about the lack of good food and water, and say that the food they do have is "worthless." In response to their complaint, God sends judgment in the form of "fiery serpents" (v. 6). This is the turning point of the story. After this
judgment the people change dramatically. They are the only dynamic characters in the story, because they realize that they have sinned against God and Moses and are humbled. They look to Moses, who they had earlier criticized and asked him to pray for them.
The strength of Moses' character is revealed by his response to the request of the people. He does just as they asked without complaint. There is a contrast between Moses and the people: When in trying circumstances (v. 4-5) the people complain and question Moses' leadership and God's providence. Moses does not answer back in kind. In fact, only God acts in response to their complaint. Once the people are repentant, Moses does not allow their past attacks to stop him from praying for them. He makes no complaint, but does as they ask (v. 7). Though it is not specifically stated, from the narrator sets Moses as the example.
Further into the story, Moses acts in a godly fashion again by obeying the Lord's command. God resolves the conflict by telling Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. Anyone who is bitten by a serpent need only look at the bronze serpent and they will live. This 'look and live' phrase is emphasized by repetition in vv. 8-9. Wenham suggests this repetition emphasizes the physical contact of looking as analogous to the touching of the sacrificial animal required in other Old Testament cleansing rituals. Without the physical contact, the sacrifice is ineffective.[4] At this point the scope has broadened and time has quickened again. The scope is focused on the nation as a whole and the time in which the remaining action takes place is nonspecific.
Summarize the Original Significance of the Story
It is difficult to determine how Numbers 21:4-9 serves the larger book of Numbers because at first blush Numbers does not seem to have much purpose. It can look like a smattering of legal texts and narratives that could not fit anywhere else. This is, however, a false impression. According to Wenham the book is highly structured, with the legal portions operating on several levels. First, they teach how Israel is to behave once they are in the land, and second, they function as evidence that the land promises will be fulfilled.[5] Why give a bunch of nomads a book of laws on how to live when they settle in a land unless it is certain that they are settling?
The narrative portions of Numbers describe the journey to the land itself. Specifically, 21:4-9 is the last instance of the Israelites complaining about their food.[6] This had occurred previously in Numbers 11 and judgment ensued. It did again, but God's grace was demonstrated because they were allowed to move forward with the campaign after their repentance.
The sinfulness of man and the graciousness of God are strong themes from the covenant relationship. As is always the case, it is God who works the reconciliation after we mess things up. Yet, as always, God is faithful to his promises. He told Abraham his descendents would have the land, and God took them there in spite of their failures.
Original Significance: The original significance of this passage was to show the continuing faithfulness of God and the continuing sinfulness of men. This is a repetitive cycle, but it also gave the audience a warning against such rebellion against God.
Trace Biblical Elaborations of the Text Through the Canon
There is not much specific reference to Numbers 21:4-9 in the other books of the Old Testament. The bronze serpent itself is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:4. Hezekiah destroyed the serpent, then called 'Nehushtan,' during his reforms because the Israelites had begun worshipping it. Beyond that I could find no mention of the story.
The three characters of the story, the Israelites, God, and Moses, are obviously mentioned throughout the Old Testament. The Israelites are often shown to be impatient and prone to complaint, as they are in the Numbers passage. In Exodus 16:2-3 and 17:1-3 the Israelites grumble for food and drink, respectively. Earlier in the book of Numbers itself the Israelites make a similar complaint. In 14:1-4 they again grumble against both God and Moses. This cycle of unfaithfulness calls into mind the cycle of rebellion in the book of Judges. Both occurred because of the persistent sinfulness of the Israelites.
These stories emphasize some facets of God's character as well. In all three instances God is shown to be merciful and two of three show God's judgment. In the Exodus passages the people grumble for lack of food (16:3) and water (17:2-3). They were certainly sinning in doing so, but God was merciful on both occasions, providing for their needs. Numbers 14 is heavy with judgment since this is the passage in which God tells the Exodus generation they will not enter the land (v. 20-23), but even here He shows His mercy. Earlier God shows what He could have done when He offers to disinherit the Israelites and make a nation of Moses (v. 11-12). After Moses' intercession (v. 13-19) God pronounces His judgment, but also promises to allow the children of the Exodus generation into the land. In Numbers 21 God begins His action with a judgment, the sending of the serpents (v. 6), but He ends with mercy, giving the people an opportunity for healing (vv. 8-9).
The compassion and intercession of Moses is featured prominently in two of the aforementioned stories. On all three occasions Moses comes before the Lord with the complaints of the people. He prays in Numbers 14 that God will not destroy the people of Israel even though God would have made him a great nation. In Numbers 21 the judgment of God has already fallen upon the Israelites, and when they are repentant Moses goes before the Lord with their request for deliverance. In all of these stories we see the mercy of Moses alongside the mercy of God. This gives legitimacy to Moses' role as God's messenger.
The most famous biblical reference to the Numbers 21:4-9 story is found in John 3. It is also the only New Testament reference to the story and Christ uses it as a picture of his crucifixion. In verse 14 Jesus says that he must be "lifted up" as Moses lifted the bronze serpent in the wilderness. It is plain that Jesus' focus is on the serpent's God-given power to heal because of his statement in verse 15: "…that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." Looking to the serpent brought physical life (Numbers 21:8,9), but believing in Jesus brings eternal life.
How Does the Episode You Are Studying Function in Relation to Other Chapters of the Biblical Storyline?
The biblical storyline should be viewed in a 'Creation-Fall-Redemption- Consummation' framework.[7] At least two of these 'chapters' throw light on the Numbers 21:4-9 narrative. The story begins with a confirmation of the Fall. The Israelites are characterized by impatience and complaint. They grumble not only against their leader Moses, but also against the God who appointed him. God had steadily provided for them, yet they called His provision "worthless" (v. 5). The result here is the same as the result of the original Fall: a curse. God sends poisonous serpents among the people, bringing death (v. 6). The people have no hope on their own, but they realize they have done wrong and ask Moses to intercede for them (v. 7).
Now the story moves from the confirmation of the Fall to the execution of redemption. Through the bronze serpent, God provides a means of delivery from death (vv. 8-9). In one small story we see both fall and redemption.
What Would Be Lost if Your Episode Did Not Appear in the Biblical Story?
If Numbers 21:4-9 did not appear in the biblical story there would be two major losses. First, the story completes a tripartite cycle in Exodus and Numbers that highlights man's continued sinfulness and God's continued grace.[8] Strictly speaking, both of these are present in other episodes, but the tripartite literary device adds beauty and emphasis. Perhaps the greatest loss, however, would be the loss of the rich redemptive imagery Christ uses in John 3. His use of the bronze serpent imagery certainly resonated with Nicodemus and provides us with insight on the nature of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
Come Under the Coaching of Other Christian Interpreters Who Apply this Text
Throughout the centuries it seems that Numbers 21:4-9 has only had a few types of application. I was interested to see that both Luther and Calvin applied this text with reference to sacraments. For instance, Calvin says that along with receiving manna and the water from the rock, the bronze serpent was a sacrament. He goes on to say that this regular variation should have told the Jews that they were not to hold on to these practices, but to wait for something better and more abiding. These better things are, of course, the two Christian sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism.[9]
Luther, while staying with the theme of sacraments, applies the text differently. He uses the brass serpent as a weapon against "sacramentarians." Accusing such people of seeking the Spirit apart from the Word, he says they would want to see the serpent held up on the pole but not bother with the Word of God that came with it.[10]
Not surprisingly, Catholic commentator Robert Culley takes a different approach to the text. Culley focuses on the "punishment…followed by a rescue or mitigation"[11] in the text. When the text is combined with other narratives in Numbers, one strong application is that God should never be provoked. His punishments are often deadly. Yet, this particular story intrigued Culley because the rescue actually draws more attention than the punishment.[12] He does not elaborate on that theme.
Gordon Keddie takes a similar approach as Culley. He claims the snakes were meant to teach the Israelites that rebelling against God will lead to their death, and that there was no hope for them to rescue themselves. Any salvation would be of grace and grace alone.[13] Keddie believes that "[t]he bronze snake preached gospel grace to Israel and speaks to us of Jesus, the only Saviour of sinners like ourselves."[14] Here, of course, Keddie is referring to Christ's use of Numbers 21:4-9 in John 3. It is useful to point out this both applications although the first was originally to Israel. Christians can still understand and appropriate the truth for our own context.
Unlike other sources I found, the Westminster Confession of Faith did not refer specifically to the Numbers passage. I was, however, able to draw an interesting connection between the Israelites in Numbers and the Church in the Confession. Both Israel and the Church represent the covenant community, and as such what is said about one will often apply to the other. Chapter 25.5 states "[t]he purest churches under heaven are subject to both mixture and error."[15] Israel in Numbers, like the church today, had people in the covenant community with rebellious hearts. This is what lead to the terrible offense when the Israelites called God's provision worthless. It should give us cause for thought as well because we are not so different from them. The book of Numbers shows over and over that mankind is marred by the Fall, so we are capable of just such a rebellion. When we cry out against God in our hearts, this one statement of the Confession should stand as a warning.
Evaluate Your Preliminary Summary of the Text's Significance
When I began this paper I wanted a deeper understanding of the significance of Numbers 21:4-9. I thought I had a superficial one, but was eager to see what deeper investigation might reveal. My original summary of the text's significance was: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
I find that to be a fairly accurate assessment of the text. I would change the original audience from "the Exodus community" to "the children of the Exodus community." What has changed is my appreciation for the literary structure and the emphasis that it places on the sinfulness of men and the graciousness of God. I better understand the passage's place in the overall narrative of Scripture.
Taking the literary factors into consideration, I might word the significance like this: "Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the children of the Exodus community of their own rebelliousness and sinfulness while also strongly emphasizing that God is gracious and faithful to keep His promises even in the midst of our sin." This does a better job highlighting the story's role in the larger biblical storyline because it takes the other stories of grumbling and rebellion into consideration, broadening the scope of application.
I am still curious about the significance of the serpent as a symbol in ancient Israel. I did find some intriguing theories about its significance, but I was not able to devote much time to that. I would also love to investigate the literary structure of Numbers and the Pentateuch as a whole in order to better grasp how it coheres.
Endnotes
[2] Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series (Leicester, Eng: Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 22-24.
[3] Ibid., 24
[4] Ibid., 158
[5] Ibid., 14,15
[6] Ibid., 157
[7] Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 1, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
[8] Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series, 16-17.
[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2:1447.
[10] Martin Luther, Luther's Works, trans. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 54:97.
[11] Robert C. Culley, "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers," in Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990), 30.
[12] Ibid., 31.
[13] Gordon J. Keddie, According to Promise: The Message of the Book of Numbers (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1992), 147-148.
[14] Ibid., 148.
[15]Westminster Confession of Faith (Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990), 84.
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 2. Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Culley, Robert C., "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers." In Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch, 25-31. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990.
Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, 55 vols. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Vol. 54. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.
Sturdy, John. Numbers, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series. Leicester, England, Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class lecture notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
Lesslie Newbigin and B.B. Warfield: A Mini-Dialogue on Inerrancy
The doctrine of inerrancy is not popular. Many evangelicals hold to it, but it is assailed on all other sides. For instance, the certainty inherent in the doctrine is off-putting to many postmodernists. To them, it seems nothing more than a power grab. Theological liberals and humanists, on the other hand, find inerrancy foolish. Biblical criticism has demonstrated many biblical errors, they think, so the matter is settled.
If the first two attacks weren't enough, another has joined the fray. Lesslie Newbigin, in his book Proper Confidence levels an attack that purports to be neither modern nor postmodern. Newbigin's attack is supposed to be biblical, or at least from a biblical worldview. How should evangelicals defend against such an attack? We must begin by examining how Newbigin understands inerrancy, and then we must analyze that understanding to see if it matches what we actually believe. This last step will involve delving into the works of one of the most brilliant inerrantists of all time, B.B. Warfield.
Newbigin defines inerrancy by asserting that anyone believing in inerrancy "affirms [the] factual, objective truth of every statement in the Bible", and believes that any factual error would destroy biblical authority.[1] Newbigin's use of the term 'objective' in the definition reveals his opinion of inerrancy. In Proper Confidence Newbigin thinks of the modernist's quest for objectivity as an attempt to rid oneself of all subjective prejudices and presuppositions, which is impossible.[2] For him, inerrancy is necessarily shackled to this illusion.[3]
Newbigin levels these accusations at evangelicals because he believes we hold an Enlightenment epistemology. In fact, he believes this to be the common ground we share with liberal Christians. The difference, in his view, is that evangelicals try to make the Bible meet Enlightenment criteria for knowledge while liberals are happy to say it does not. He refers to these criteria as "alien norms" which take our focus off a proper biblical epistemology. In this way, according to Newbigin, evangelicals end up placing their confidence in human rationality rather than the personal God of the universe.[4] This is Newbigin's error, and a proper understanding of Warfield will expose it.
Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield was perhaps the greatest defender the doctrine of inerrancy ever had. The greatness of his defense is doubted by many, however, because his writing is not easy to comprehend. Many have erroneously called Warfield a modernist, thereby making him appear vulnerable to Newbigin's criticism. From there it is easy to extend the reasoning: if Warfield is the best defender of inerrancy, then most other inerrantists will follow in his footsteps. Therefore, whatever criticism is true of him must also be true of the whole lot. A fair reading of Warfield tells a different story.
In his book The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield states that the
proper way to approach the Bible is to assume its accuracy.[5] Problematic passages are 'innocent until proven guilty.' This is not in line with the Newbigin's conception of inerrancy. If Warfield was a modernist he should have used the principle of critical doubt here. Instead he approaches the text in faith, which is exactly what Newbigin desires.
Warfield also rejects the view that it is impossible to trust Christ because he can only be known through history. The modernist aversion to arguments from history is well known. Historical events cannot be proven by reason, so they are suspect. While Warfield agrees in Revelation and Inspiration that historical study is not enough to give someone full confidence in Christ, he still asserts that such confidence should be given.[6]
These two facts (presumption of accuracy and full confidence in Christ without deductive certainty) demonstrate that Warfield was not mired in the Enlightenment when he defended inerrancy. On the contrary, one could say that Warfield's understanding of Scripture was in the same ballpark as Newbigin's. Newbigin says, "the locus of our confidence (if one may put it so) is not in the competence of our own knowing, but in the faithfulness and reliability of the one who is known."[7] Warfield would have added a hearty 'amen' to this statement, but would want to take that confidence even further.
One must not assume, however, that Newbigin and Warfield are in complete agreement, regardless of the similarities we previously noted. Though some disagreements are without merit, others remain. As one reads the two theologians side by side an interesting dynamic emerges. Both acknowledge that Scripture involves interaction between the human and the divine, and they agree that humans are fallible creatures. The difference is in which side of the revelatory partnership they emphasize.
Newbigin emphasizes the effect the fallibility of man has on Scripture. He states, "at every point…we are dealing with the interaction of men and women with God. At every point human judgment and fallibility are involved…"[8] To Newbigin the debate is over at this point. Once humans enter the picture fallibility follows. This assumption is made more plain by another statement: "The idea that at a certain point in this long story a line was drawn before which everything is divine word and after which everything is human judgment is absurd."[9] Perhaps, but which inerrantist proposed such a line? What of the role of the Holy Spirit?
Warfield provides the answer. In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible he points out that the Church has always believed that the Holy Spirit superintended the wording of the divine revelation. He did so because, in Warfield's opinion (which is likely correct), falsehood is inconsistent with the divine nature.[10] If I may, I will supplement Warfield with a quote from Sinclair Ferguson's essay, "How Does the Bible Look at Itself?":
The nature of God and the nature of language conspire to make verbal inerrancy not only a viable doctrine, but also a needful one. As a result, evangelicals should not fear to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. This is proper confidence indeed.
[1] Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. p. 85
[2] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 45
[3] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85
[4] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85-6
[5] B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible," 215-16 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[6] B.B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration," 67 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[7] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 67
[8] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[9] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[10] Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 296 quoted in Williams "Covenant Theology" lecture notes, 16
[11] Sinclair Ferguson, "How Does the Bible See Itself?," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998), 47-66.
If the first two attacks weren't enough, another has joined the fray. Lesslie Newbigin, in his book Proper Confidence levels an attack that purports to be neither modern nor postmodern. Newbigin's attack is supposed to be biblical, or at least from a biblical worldview. How should evangelicals defend against such an attack? We must begin by examining how Newbigin understands inerrancy, and then we must analyze that understanding to see if it matches what we actually believe. This last step will involve delving into the works of one of the most brilliant inerrantists of all time, B.B. Warfield.
Newbigin defines inerrancy by asserting that anyone believing in inerrancy "affirms [the] factual, objective truth of every statement in the Bible", and believes that any factual error would destroy biblical authority.[1] Newbigin's use of the term 'objective' in the definition reveals his opinion of inerrancy. In Proper Confidence Newbigin thinks of the modernist's quest for objectivity as an attempt to rid oneself of all subjective prejudices and presuppositions, which is impossible.[2] For him, inerrancy is necessarily shackled to this illusion.[3]
Newbigin levels these accusations at evangelicals because he believes we hold an Enlightenment epistemology. In fact, he believes this to be the common ground we share with liberal Christians. The difference, in his view, is that evangelicals try to make the Bible meet Enlightenment criteria for knowledge while liberals are happy to say it does not. He refers to these criteria as "alien norms" which take our focus off a proper biblical epistemology. In this way, according to Newbigin, evangelicals end up placing their confidence in human rationality rather than the personal God of the universe.[4] This is Newbigin's error, and a proper understanding of Warfield will expose it.
Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield was perhaps the greatest defender the doctrine of inerrancy ever had. The greatness of his defense is doubted by many, however, because his writing is not easy to comprehend. Many have erroneously called Warfield a modernist, thereby making him appear vulnerable to Newbigin's criticism. From there it is easy to extend the reasoning: if Warfield is the best defender of inerrancy, then most other inerrantists will follow in his footsteps. Therefore, whatever criticism is true of him must also be true of the whole lot. A fair reading of Warfield tells a different story.
In his book The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield states that the
proper way to approach the Bible is to assume its accuracy.[5] Problematic passages are 'innocent until proven guilty.' This is not in line with the Newbigin's conception of inerrancy. If Warfield was a modernist he should have used the principle of critical doubt here. Instead he approaches the text in faith, which is exactly what Newbigin desires.
Warfield also rejects the view that it is impossible to trust Christ because he can only be known through history. The modernist aversion to arguments from history is well known. Historical events cannot be proven by reason, so they are suspect. While Warfield agrees in Revelation and Inspiration that historical study is not enough to give someone full confidence in Christ, he still asserts that such confidence should be given.[6]
These two facts (presumption of accuracy and full confidence in Christ without deductive certainty) demonstrate that Warfield was not mired in the Enlightenment when he defended inerrancy. On the contrary, one could say that Warfield's understanding of Scripture was in the same ballpark as Newbigin's. Newbigin says, "the locus of our confidence (if one may put it so) is not in the competence of our own knowing, but in the faithfulness and reliability of the one who is known."[7] Warfield would have added a hearty 'amen' to this statement, but would want to take that confidence even further.
One must not assume, however, that Newbigin and Warfield are in complete agreement, regardless of the similarities we previously noted. Though some disagreements are without merit, others remain. As one reads the two theologians side by side an interesting dynamic emerges. Both acknowledge that Scripture involves interaction between the human and the divine, and they agree that humans are fallible creatures. The difference is in which side of the revelatory partnership they emphasize.
Newbigin emphasizes the effect the fallibility of man has on Scripture. He states, "at every point…we are dealing with the interaction of men and women with God. At every point human judgment and fallibility are involved…"[8] To Newbigin the debate is over at this point. Once humans enter the picture fallibility follows. This assumption is made more plain by another statement: "The idea that at a certain point in this long story a line was drawn before which everything is divine word and after which everything is human judgment is absurd."[9] Perhaps, but which inerrantist proposed such a line? What of the role of the Holy Spirit?
Warfield provides the answer. In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible he points out that the Church has always believed that the Holy Spirit superintended the wording of the divine revelation. He did so because, in Warfield's opinion (which is likely correct), falsehood is inconsistent with the divine nature.[10] If I may, I will supplement Warfield with a quote from Sinclair Ferguson's essay, "How Does the Bible Look at Itself?":
Because words express meaning, and a particular word may possess different
meanings in different contexts, the meaning communicated depends on the
significance of all the words used. If Scripture is God-breathed at all,
that inspiration must extend to all the words that are employed.[11]
The nature of God and the nature of language conspire to make verbal inerrancy not only a viable doctrine, but also a needful one. As a result, evangelicals should not fear to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. This is proper confidence indeed.
[1] Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. p. 85
[2] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 45
[3] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85
[4] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85-6
[5] B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible," 215-16 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[6] B.B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration," 67 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[7] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 67
[8] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[9] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[10] Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 296 quoted in Williams "Covenant Theology" lecture notes, 16
[11] Sinclair Ferguson, "How Does the Bible See Itself?," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998), 47-66.
Bibliography
Ferguson, Sinclair. "How Does the Bible Look at Itself?," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn, 47-66. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998.
Newbigin, Lesslie. Proper Confidence: Faith Doubt & Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class Lecture Notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
Newbigin, Lesslie. Proper Confidence: Faith Doubt & Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class Lecture Notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Habakkuk: Who? What? When? Where? Why?
The book of Habakkuk is not often preached upon in evangelical churches today. This, I believe, has lead to a lack of familiarity with the contents of that book, which is a shame. Sometimes Old Testament books can seem intimidating so people avoid studying them on their own. I would like to encourage every Christian to delve into all these books, but I will highlight Habakkuk specifically. In order to provide a quick intro to the book I thought I’d post some of my incomplete sermon notes. I hope they’re helpful. I focused on the '5 W's'.
Who? Habakkuk
What? Generally: He is questioning God’s inaction against a sinful Judah. He is not sinning because his complaint actually assumes God’s righteousness. Since God is righteous, why is He allowing Judah to go on without judgment?
Specifically: What are Habakkuk’s complaints?
A. The complaints: vv. 2-3a
B. Expanding on the complaints: vv. 3b-4
The Lord is unresponsive: v. 2-3 “…how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you ‘Violence!’ and you will not save? Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise.” Habakkuk had been praying long and hard for deliverance from an unjust society. Violence was running unchecked through the streets and God was doing nothing. Habakkuk was tormented in his soul because of the sin of his society. Are we tormented when we see society’s sin? Do we take it seriously?
The torment was made all the more severe by the fact that Habakkuk knew That God is holy. He knew God’s righteous standard and the judgment violation of it would bring (Deut. 28:15-68), but such judgment was nowhere to be seen.
Even in the courts of law there was no respite from cruelty. In v. 4 Habakkuk cries, “So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted.” The authorities who should have been executing judgment against evil twisted it for their own purposes. The wicked used the law as a weapon against the righteous. Of course, Habakkuk wasn’t ready for God’s response.
When? Probably during the reign of Jehoiakim, not long before the Babylonian captivity. Jehoiakim was the second son of the godly king Josiah. Josiah’s first son, Jehoahaz, had been deposed and taken to Egypt by Pharoah Neco (2 Chron. 36:1-4). Jeremiah was also active as a prophet during this time. (2 Chron. 35:25)
Where? Judah.
Why? Habakkuk is questioning God because he is astounded that God hasn’t judged the sinful nation yet. He knows the promises of judgment for unfaithfulness (Deut. 28:15-68), but he sees nothing of happening. This confuses him, as it would confuse me. It is hard to remember that God’s timing is perfect when sin surrounds you as it did Habakkuk. Yet Habakkuk remained faithful to God and ultimately trusted His providence. Even though he knew judgment was coming he ends his book with a psalm of joy in the Lord (3:17-19).
Who? Habakkuk
What? Generally: He is questioning God’s inaction against a sinful Judah. He is not sinning because his complaint actually assumes God’s righteousness. Since God is righteous, why is He allowing Judah to go on without judgment?
Specifically: What are Habakkuk’s complaints?
A. The complaints: vv. 2-3a
B. Expanding on the complaints: vv. 3b-4
The Lord is unresponsive: v. 2-3 “…how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you ‘Violence!’ and you will not save? Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise.” Habakkuk had been praying long and hard for deliverance from an unjust society. Violence was running unchecked through the streets and God was doing nothing. Habakkuk was tormented in his soul because of the sin of his society. Are we tormented when we see society’s sin? Do we take it seriously?
The torment was made all the more severe by the fact that Habakkuk knew That God is holy. He knew God’s righteous standard and the judgment violation of it would bring (Deut. 28:15-68), but such judgment was nowhere to be seen.
Even in the courts of law there was no respite from cruelty. In v. 4 Habakkuk cries, “So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted.” The authorities who should have been executing judgment against evil twisted it for their own purposes. The wicked used the law as a weapon against the righteous. Of course, Habakkuk wasn’t ready for God’s response.
When? Probably during the reign of Jehoiakim, not long before the Babylonian captivity. Jehoiakim was the second son of the godly king Josiah. Josiah’s first son, Jehoahaz, had been deposed and taken to Egypt by Pharoah Neco (2 Chron. 36:1-4). Jeremiah was also active as a prophet during this time. (2 Chron. 35:25)
Where? Judah.
Why? Habakkuk is questioning God because he is astounded that God hasn’t judged the sinful nation yet. He knows the promises of judgment for unfaithfulness (Deut. 28:15-68), but he sees nothing of happening. This confuses him, as it would confuse me. It is hard to remember that God’s timing is perfect when sin surrounds you as it did Habakkuk. Yet Habakkuk remained faithful to God and ultimately trusted His providence. Even though he knew judgment was coming he ends his book with a psalm of joy in the Lord (3:17-19).
Monday, June 19, 2006
Habakkuk: The Providence and Justice of God
A foremer professor of mine once told me that Barnhouse (or at least I think it was Barnhouse) would not set his pen to paper regarding a book of the Bible unless he had read it at least fifty times. I don’t think I’ve read any book of the Bible all the way through fifty times, but I know in recent days I have at least gotten into double digits with Habakkuk. Like most of the Minor Prophets, evangelicals generally ignore Habakkuk, but there is much to be learned from this book.
It comes as a surprise to some that a large part of Habakkuk’s first chapter is comprised by a complaint or questioning of God. In 1:2-4 we find the prophet complaining about God’s lack of action against a rebellious people. “Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong?” he asks.
The book takes place in a time before the Jews were taken captive into Babylon. According to the study notes in the Reformation Study Bible Habakkuk prophesied during the reign of King Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36-24:6; 2 Chronicles 36:4-8). This was a time marked by wickedness, as Habakkuk’s complaint indicates. The Bible gives little information on him other than the fact that he did evil deeds. Habakkuk was grieved, as would be any godly man. He saw violence and destruction (vs. 2, 3) and mourned the lack of justice that was found in the land (v. 4). Why wasn’t God doing anything?
As is always the case, God was doing something. The LORD answered Habakkuk’s question with words of impending judgment.
It comes as a surprise to some that a large part of Habakkuk’s first chapter is comprised by a complaint or questioning of God. In 1:2-4 we find the prophet complaining about God’s lack of action against a rebellious people. “Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong?” he asks.
The book takes place in a time before the Jews were taken captive into Babylon. According to the study notes in the Reformation Study Bible Habakkuk prophesied during the reign of King Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36-24:6; 2 Chronicles 36:4-8). This was a time marked by wickedness, as Habakkuk’s complaint indicates. The Bible gives little information on him other than the fact that he did evil deeds. Habakkuk was grieved, as would be any godly man. He saw violence and destruction (vs. 2, 3) and mourned the lack of justice that was found in the land (v. 4). Why wasn’t God doing anything?
As is always the case, God was doing something. The LORD answered Habakkuk’s question with words of impending judgment.
Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded.For I
am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if
told. For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter
and hasty nation,who march through the breadth of the earth, to
seize dwellings not their own. (vs. 5, 6)
The description of the Babylonians goes on to verse 11, but his is good news, right? God is not just allowing sin to pass by unnoticed. This is what Habakkuk wanted. Or…was it?
Therefore he sacrifices to his net
And makes offerings to his dragnet;
For by them he lives in luxury,
And his food is rich.
Is he then to keep on emptying his net
And mercilessly killing nations for ever? (vs. 16, 17)
Habakkuk is referring to the Babylonians here. The ‘net’ is a metaphor their ability to conquer nations and then attributing their victory to their gods and their power (see v. 11). He cannot understand why God would judge Judah using an even more wicked nation. Why allow God’s people to be conquered by someone who is not even going to give the glory to God?
God gives his answer in the form of a vision. The bulk of chapter two is a prediction of the downfall of Babylon. There are five woes pronounced upon them. Again, God will not let deeds of wickedness go unpunished. Perhaps I will write on the five woes later this week.
The close of the book is a prayer-song by Habakkuk. Though the book opens with doubt and questions, it ends with certainty.
Though the fig tree should not blossom,
Nor fruit be on the vines,
The produce of the olive fail
And the fields yield no food,
The flock be cut off from the fold
And ther be noherd in the stalls,
Yet I will rejoice in the LORD;
I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
GOD, the Lord, is my strength;
He makes my feet like the deer’s;
He makes me tread on my high places.
To which I say, "Amen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)