The Passage Caught in Adultery? November 25, 2009

¹ But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
² Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. ³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

For those who haven’t been introduced to wonderful world of textual criticism yet, John 8:1-11 is a good place to start. The question of the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae, i.e. John 8:1-11 as it is referred to amongst scholars, has caused quite a bit of controversey.To summarize the entirety of why the debate exists, we can point to two main factors:

1. It’s late appearance in the “best” manuscripts

&

2. Its supposed usage of “non-Johannine” (i.e. “non-John”) words.

These two factors, apparently, caused the entire passage’s authenticity to be called into question by scholars of the rank and association of men like John Calvin and Bruce Metzger (to name but two among the many who would argue against it). [For a more in depth history and analysis of the Pericope Adultera problem, see here.]

Yet, what I find humorous and disturbingly problematic is the fact that their accepted method of evaluation/interpretation has not been called into question. The incident, its position in the gospel narrative, and the reliability of the record are all called into question – but the method of evaluation/interpretation used by such scholars who consider it to be a later scribal interpolation is assumed to be valid and reliable.

But is it?

Several months ago, I read through John’s gospel as intently and closely as I could, and found that the book evidences a very rigid structure that surfaces repeatedly and which serves as the vehicle whereby John communicates his opening statement concerning the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is, John uses the structure of his gospel to communicate the simple truth that Jesus is the Word of God (i.e. the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament).

Some main structural features of John’s gospel are:

1. Symbolism (e.g. the wedding at Cana where the “new wine” Christ makes is considered superior to the “wine at first” by the master of the feast, pointing to Jesus’ wine of the new covenant as superior to the old covenant)

2. Typological Fulfillment (e.g. “I am the bread which came down from heaven…” [John 6], “…as Moses lifted up the serpent…” [John 3], et al)

3. Narratival Incremental Repetition (e.g. The healing of the blind man in John 9 identifies Christ with increasing clarity as the narrative draws to a close – first identifying Him as a “man” [v. 11], then as a “prophet” [v. 17], and finally as “Lord” [v. 36 & v. 38] – which narratively parallels his physical healing and the blindness of those who cannot see their own sin or see that Jesus is the Messiah). Literary scholar Robert Alter touches upon incremental repetition’s appearance throughout Scripture as a vehicle for the communication of ideas (i.e. as an indispensible literary technique) in his works, primarily The Art of Biblical Narrative.

There are more, but I think these suffice to show that what would contribute to a better, wider evaluative/interpretive methodology would be the consideration of the text at hand as a piece of literature. The problem with the conclusions drawn by Calvin and Metzger, let’s say, is that they fail to see that the Pericope Adulturae is structurally indispensible to the gospel of John.

John’s gospel is rife with incremental repetitions that typically occur in triplets. This something we also find in the book of Revelation 5, for example, which contains three doxologies: (a.) the Lamb’s worthiness to open the scroll (vv. 8-10), (b.) the Lamb’s worthiness to receive the seven fold blessing (vv. 11-12), and (c.) the worthiness of the Father and the Lamb to receive worship (vv. 13-14).

The pericope in question meets all three literary markers as a (1.)symbol of the marriage of Christ and the church, (2.) the fulfillment of God ordained marriage-types found in the book of Genesis, and (3.) completes a macro-narratival incremental repetition.

Symbolism

John’s portrayal of Christ as the bridegroom is first hinted at in John 2:1-12, where the bridegroom is identified as being the agent responsible for bringing out the best/new wine at the wedding feast, when in reality it is Christ who is responsible. Subtle? Sure, but John’s intention is pretty clear. Jesus is the promised bridgegroom/Messiah. And if isn’t clear enough, he goes on to record John the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as the bridegroom in John 3:29-30:

²⁹ He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. ³⁰ He must increase, but I must decrease.

On a level for the plain eye to discern, John is identifying Jesus as the Bridegroom. This symbol, drawn from the Old Testament, is also used in the book of Revelation where John refers to the bride of Christ as the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven (Rev. 19:1-10), and is characteristic of the entire Biblical portrait of Christ (e.g., cf. Ps. 45).

Typological Fulfillment

As I mentioned earlier, John’s allusions and direct references to the Old Testament are many (perhaps too many to list here!), and find their explication, therefore, in a careful assessment of those texts in question. This is the case for John 2, for instance, which mirrors Gen. 40 in a variety of ways but perhaps most powerfully in its usage of the wine/bread><blood/broken body motif which foreshadows the Last Supper, but also helps John identify Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. More time can and should be devoted to the comparison of John 2 and Genesis 40, but for now I’ll draw out the basic parallels between the two.

1. Wine/Bread: In Gen. 40:1-15, the butler’s dream about wine appears first; in vv. 16-19 the baker’s dream about bread, i.e. his body, follows. In John 2, the first focus is wine (vv. 1-12), the second is Jesus’ body (vv.13- 21). John follows the basic structure of the passage in Genesis.

2. Three Days: Gen. 40 hinges upon a three day period prior to the release of the butler and the baker (40:20, et al). In John, the wedding in Cana occurs on “the third day”, and Jesus makes an explicit reference to the resurrection occurring after three days (respectively, 2:1 & 19)

3. The Satisfaction of the King/The Broken Body: In Gen. 40, the Pharoah is served wine by the butler, with whom he is pleased, while the body of the baker is hanged. In a similar fashion, John 2 presents us with the “master of the wedding feast” who is well pleased with the new wine given by Christ on the third day, and Jesus speaks of the breaking/hanging/crucifixion of His body and His resurrection on the third day.

I think these three points are sufficient to show that John is very purposefully aligning his narrative record with Genesis 40 in order to elicit typlogical fulfillment. Jesus is the true butler who poured out His own blood to satisfy the wrath of God, and whose blood continually speaks on our behalf before the Father (cf. Hebrews 9:11-15). He is also greater than the baker, His body being broken for our sins and not His own, when He was condemened to “hang” upon the tree of Calvary (cf. Galatians 3:10-14).

On this basis, it’s easy to see why John parallels the three “God-Ordained marriages of Genesis” with the three “Christ-Sinful Woman Narratives”  in his gospel (which I’ve written a little about here). Here is an unfortunately brief comparative typological analysis.

1. [Adam/Eve (Gen. 2:15-25)]/[Jesus/Mary (John 19:31-37 & 20:11-17)]: Both events are situated in a garden, containing a Gardener (Adam is really a gardener, while Mary supposes Jesus is the Gardener), after the sides of both males have been pierced. Moses tells us that man will cleave unto his wife; Jesus tells Mary not to cling unto Him, for He has not yet ascended to His Father. The typological significance of John 20:

2. [Isaac/Rebekah (Gen. 24)]/[Jesus/Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)]: Both events feature a woman being brought to the promised Seed (Isaac and Jesus) by men who belong to the household of Abraham (in Gen. 24, the servant (Eliezer) is spiritually, as a man of faith, a member of Abraham’s household, whereas those who bring the woman caught in adultery to Jesus are spiritually unrelated to Abraham – cf. John 8:31-59 and cf. Galatians 4:21-31); also, in both narratives the woman’s history is presented to the male in question by the aforementioned servant[s].

3. [Jacob/Rachel (Gen. 29:1-14)]/[Jesus/Woman at the Well (John 4)]: As Jacob traveled to meet Rachel, so Christ was traveling to meet the Samaritan woman at the well (who references Jacob’s well and questions Christ as to whether or not He is greater than Jacob), and as Jacob offers to roll away the stone covering the well and water Rachel’s sheep, so Christ speaks of the outpouring of His Holy Spirit (which succeeded His rolling away the stone that covered His own tomb).

Narratival Incremental Repetition

As I briefly mentioned above, one manner of incremental repetition can be found within a particular narrative (e.g. the blind man’s gradual ability to truly see Christ as Lord and Messiah is aided literarily by the use of incremental repetition, see above). However, another usage incremental repetition can be found in entire narratives. There are three of which I’m aware.

1. Bread Breaking Narratives: There are three bread breaking scenes that incrementally climax in John 21. These are: (1.) The feeding of the five thousand in John 6, (2.) The Lord’s supper in John 13, and (3.) The Lord’s breakfast in John 21.

2. The Resurrection Narratives: There are three resurrection narratives that climax in, you guessed it, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. These are: (1.) The near resurrection of the Nobleman’s son in John 4, (2.) The resurrection of Lazarus, and (3.) The resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

3. The Christ-Sinful Woman Narratives: Seeing as I’ve already gone over these, I’ll just speak about the incremental climax. John’s presentation of Christ as greater than Jacob, and as the truly only begotten Son who, unlike Isaac, was truly sacrificed by the Father, climaxes in his presentation of Jesus as the Last Adam who side was pierced and who purchased His bride thereby – the true Son of God who, unlike Adam, fully obeyed the Father and now will never die.

Final Remarks…

There is much more I could write here, but time is against me. My point in this blog was simply to elucidate the structure of John’s gospel in the hopes of creating much needed research, on behalf of textual scholars, into how macro-literary structure orders language use and not vice-versa. Whether or not the passage is included in the early manuscripts is nearly inconsequential once we seriously examine the literary work on its own terms and not according to methodological presuppositions that, in truth, severely limit the criteria for determining the authenticity of a given text of Scripture.

Questioning one’s own methodological presuppositions is vital to a healthy consideration of complementary, not altogether alternative or contradictory, data when facing a problematic portion of Scripture.

If we just stick to our own methodologies, in spite of what data/evidence another methodology may yield we’re no different than these guys…

- H -

How Blind Jacob Saw… November 13, 2009

⁸ Then Israel saw Joseph’s sons, and said, “Who are these?”

⁹ Joseph said to his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me in this place.”

And he said, “Please bring them to me, and I will bless them.”

¹⁰ Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age, so that he could not see. Then Joseph brought them near him, and he kissed them and embraced them.

¹¹ And Israel said to Joseph, “I had not thought to see your face; but in fact, God has also shown me your offspring!”

Genesis 48:8-11

Now if you didn’t catch it, the above passage tells us something apparently contradictory:

At the end of his arduous journey through life, blind Jacob saw.

Ironically, this is one passage of Scripture I’ve yet to see discussed by individuals who would claim to see tons of contradictions within the Word of God. One would assume this would be an easy target and yet it often gets passed right over by both believers and unbelievers. Why? Why did I never observe this and ask:

How did/could blind Jacob see?

Being familiar with the story, I noticed that I tend to skim over the text at times in search of those truths that have been preached upon countless times. Well, this time it was different: I had to stop and look at different translations, and a few commentary notes here and there in order to try to make sense of what was going on here.

Not surprisingly, all of the resources I checked out interpreted Jacob’s inability to see as being only partial (i.e. he was nearly blind, not fully blind). I felt, and still feel, that this is a plausible solution to the apparent contradiction, although I think we may be missing the bigger picture the Holy Spirit is painting for us in this chapter.

Why?

Well you see, the word used here for “see” (ראה) is first used in the opening of the Jacob’s speech to Joseph in vv. 3-4:

³ Then Jacob said to Joseph: “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, ⁴ and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a multitude of people, and give this land to your descendants after you as an everlasting possession.’

Jacob’s sight is, in the above passage, spiritual and literal. Could it be that blind Jacob’s sight, his ability to see Joseph’s sons, was not literal but spiritual (or possibly both – i.e. partial blindness and full spiritual sight)? Could it be that Jacob’s literal blindness wasn’t paralleling his father’s literal/figurative blindness in Gen. 27?

I believe we wouldn’t be in strange territory if we took it to mean precisely that blind Jacob’s sight was (figurative) spiritual, not literal. Especially since it isn’t until Jacob blesses Ephraim (the younger) with a greater blessing than Manessah (the firstborn) that we read:

¹⁷ Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head.

Up until this point, the only seeing that was being done was being done by Jacob. This is significant because it seems to validate interpreting Jacob’s ability to see as being not only literal (i.e. in his extremely bad eyesight) but also spiritual. Jacob could see that it was Ephraim who was going to be more highly blessed by God, not Manessah.

Joseph’s literal ability to see doesn’t help him see what Jacob sees in Ephraim’s future, so he tries to correct his father’s behavior and is corrected by his blind father!

So now can you see where I’m coming from?

We often fail to see God’s perfect plan, although we are looking right at it. We sometimes depend more on our natural abilities than we do in His Word/promises (remember, this is all begins with Jacob’s reference to God’s promise).

Not only that, and here’s where it gets even more convicting, but we often criticize the spirituality of others on the basis of how their natural abilities compare to ours.

ouch.

May the Lord open our eyes to see His truth.

peace…

God Said…and it Was So: The Narratival Priority of the Word of God September 29, 2009

In the Beginning was the Word

Perhaps one the most overlooked themes of the Old Testament is one that dominates its every book: the narratival priority of the word of God. The general and redemptive histories that are presented in the Old Testament, and which find fulfillment in the New Testament,[1] refer back to the beginning where the power and sovereignty of God’s word over and in creation, jurisprudence, relationships and redemption find their clearest articulation. As primeval history[2] unfolds, this theme powerfully and concretely illustrates what God later states through the prophet Isaiah when He declares that His Word “shall not return to [Him] void, but it shall accomplish what [He pleases]”.[3] In these opening chapters, God effectively calls forth creation from nothing,[4] establishes and violates natural laws,[5] unites and divides human relationships,[6] passes judgment upon all of humanity,[7] imposes new natural laws,[8] establishes human government (capital punishment),[9] and deconstructs human language and government.[10] The picture is not only of a God who is transcendent to His creation, but of the narratival priority of His word in all of human history.

There is, therefore, no narrative that does not find its basis in God’s Word, as Psalm 19 proclaims. Even the heavens’ declaration of God’s glory is secondary to the word of God that spoke them into existence, thus leading the psalmist back to that spoken Word’s written equivalent. Note that the psalmist is not referring to a single moment in time when the heavens declared the glory of God, but to a narratival history in which the heavens are continually declaring God’s glory, pointing to God the Creator who has revealed Himself with even more specificity in His written Word. The psalmist begins with the creative word of God, which then becomes more intimate as the written word (or “law”)[11] of God is then reflected upon and the psalm draws to a close. And interior to this intimacy is the psalmist’s recognition of his own inability to keep the written word (“law”) of God, followed by a plea to God his Redeemer. Psalm 19 emphasizes that the word of God exhibits sovereignty over and in creation (vv. 1-6), jurisprudence (vv. 7-9), relationships and redemption (vv. 11-14).

And God Said…

This progression is not unique to Psalm 19, but follows a pattern first found in Genesis 1-3.In its first six verses, Psalm 19 gives special emphasis to the universal day-night cycle that frames the entire creation narrative, where “Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night utters knowledge”[12] and God’s word sets general history in order by creating and ordering the environment in which this history will take place[13] and creating and giving function/purpose to the types of creatures which will inhabit this environment.[14] Although the creation account is not completely impersonal, in that it does accord man a special status in the animal kingdom (i.e. as the bearer of the Imago Dei and as the only creature to which God directly spoke[15]), this special status does not step beyond mere biological privilege. Thus “the history of the heavens and the earth”[16] and all that is within them is a history that has been created and is innately driven by the word of God. What God has decreed must come to pass.

Genesis 1 presents God’s word as responsible for creation and naturally binding, but lacks the intimacy conveyed in the latter verses of Psalm 19. For thus far, God has only acted as Creator; and it is not until God acts as Lawgiver/Judge, via the giving of the first recorded “law”,[17] that He and man are depicted as entering into a more intimate relationship.

…You Shall Not Eat…

In Genesis 2, prior to the creation of woman and the first marriage in human history, God sets the boundaries of Adam’s moral behavior by giving him a commandment. “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat,” He says, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”[18] This is where redemptive history begins. The legal word of God differentiates Adam from the other animals by requiring willful obedience to a law extrinsic to his natural function/purpose. Up until this time, man has only been presented as the apex of God’s creation granted the special biological privilege of exercising dominion over all of the other creatures. He is biologically obedient to God’s natural law and, even after the fall, maintains the same function/purpose.[19]

Man’s special relationship to God, therefore, is found in his response to God’s law. And just as the psalmist moves from the narrative of creation to the written word (“law”) of God, so too the Genesis narrative moves from the creative word setting all of general history into motion, into the beginning of a redemptive history set into motion by God’s “law”. The introduction of God’s “law” creates a relational space so intimate that it immediately precedes God’s personal involvement with Adam, as He expresses concern over Adam’s singleness and His own desire to rectify what He deems to be “not good”.[20]

The narratival priority of God in these chapters has thus far served to powerfully illustrate the power and sovereignty of God’s word over and in creation, jurisprudence, and relationships, but not yet fully in redemption. For between the giving of the law and the execution of judgment, sin enters in via the word of the serpent.[21]

Whereas Genesis 1 and 2 repeat the phrase “…God said”, the first words out of the serpent’s mouth are: “Has God indeed said […]?” This indicates that this chapter is thematically linked to the creation narrative (by the serpent’s inversion of its refrain) and the giving of the commandment (by the serpent’s inversion of God’s commandment).[22]

As the law of God gradually falls out of view,[23] the woman and her husband hide from the word of God that now calls them to account for their behavior. The judgment that follows fully establishes that God’s word is also legally binding. God has indeed said. Yet within this general context of judgment, the prophetic word of God also appears in the protoevangelium,[24] promising to bring redemptive history to a close.[25]

Moses, Miracles, the Law, and Messiah

In the interim God separates a people for this purpose, increasing them in number until they become a possible threat to the kingdom under whose hand they have become slaves. They seek deliverance, however, this deliverance does not come about until the power and sovereignty of God’s word over and in creation is established by the miracles wrought by the hand of Moses in the presence of Pharaoh (i.e. the narratival priority of God’s word in general history),[26] and in their presence (in the wilderness, posterior to crossing the Re(e)d Sea).[27]

Thus the narratival priority of the word of God precedes the deliverance of the children of Israel and their intimate relationship with God in the giving of the Law.[28] Nevertheless once the Law is given, the Israelites enter into an intimate relationship with God,[29] following the pattern laid out in Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 19. Israel’s failure to keep the Law further reflects this pattern in that God, in His judgment upon them, promises them the Redeemer, Christ Jesus.[30]

The Kingdom and the Prophets

As the Pentateuch clearly shows, God’s word precedes both general history and redemptive history; nothing happens prior to God’s word. Hence, Israel’s history after the deaths of Joshua and Caleb[31] is very much the moral equivalent of dark, formless void that is the earth in Genesis 1:2 prior to the word of God’s entrance.[32] In fact, it is not until God speaks to Samuel that light once again enters Israel,[33] and God begins to establish a righteous kingdom, by His word spoken by Samuel, via the election and appointment of King David to the throne.

In spite of a successful beginning under King David’s rule, disobedience to the God’s Law divides the kingdom into two (the Northern and Southern) kingdoms, that both ultimately fail to keep God’s Law. The curses promised to follow Israel’s disobedience, given in Deuteronomy 28, become a reality for them. And God, once again, through the many prophets He raises up, promises them redemption.

Nevertheless, the tension remains. The prophet Isaiah pleas with Israel to return to the Law,[34] but understands that they will not.[35] Their hope lies in the same Redeemer God promised to their first parents in the Garden of Eden, the Seed whose heel would be bruised as He bruised the head of the serpent tempted them to question the narratival priority of God’s word. The Suffering Servant: the Lord Jesus Christ.[36]

---

[1] By “general” and “redemptive” narratives, I mean to differentiate between creation as an ongoing general narrative/history (cf. Ps. 19:1-4), and the narrative/history of God’s people as it relates to the coming of Christ.

 

[2] viz. Gen. 1-3

[3] Isa. 55:11

[4] cf. Gen. 1:1-2

[5] The blessings bestowed upon creation are given without any legal prerequisites and are, therefore, intrinsic to the natural order of creation. This would seem to indicate that the curses upon creation in Gen. 3:14-18 violate the goodness and orderliness intrinsic to natural order of creation.

[6] cf. Gen. 2:18-25 & 3:16

[7] cf. Gen. 3:16-19, 24 & Gen. 6-7

[8] cf. Gen. 8:21-22 & 9:8-17

[9] cf. Gen. 9:5-6

[10] cf. Gen. 11:1-9

[11] cf. Ps. 19:7

[12] cf. Ps. 19:2

[13] cf. Gen. 1:1-13; Also, regarding laws imposed upon the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”, Job 38 gives much more detail, giving emphasis to nature’s obedience to God’s word/decree.

[14] cf. Gen.1:14-15; 1:20-22; 1:26 & 2:15

[15] cf. Gen. 1:26-30

[16] cf. Gen. 2:4, emphasis mine

[17] Gen. 2:16-17

[18] ibid.

[19] cf. Gen. 2:15 & 3:17-18, 23; Adam is cursed, but his natural purpose/function does not change. It is his relationship to God that is greatly affected, underscoring that the personal/legal word of God is what makes man’s relationship to God vastly different than what the other animals experience.

[20] Cf. Gen 2:18

[21] Gen. 3:1

[22] cf. Gen. 2:16 & 3:1b

[23] There is an interesting progression in this chapter that finds expression elsewhere. The progression is threefold: (i.) questioning, (ii.) corrupting, and (iii.) and flat out denying the word of God.

[24] Cf. 3:15

[25] Cf. Ps. 19:7-11 corresponding to the Law; vv.12-13 corresponding to sin and judgment; and v. 14 corresponding to God as Redeemer.

[26] Cf. Ex. 3-4; 7-12; 13-15

[27] Cf. Ex. 16-17&19

[28] cf. Ex. 20-23

[29] cf. Ex. 24

[30] cf. Deut. 18:15, 18

[31] viz. Joshua, Judges & Ruth

[32] cf. Gen. 1:3

[33] cf. 1^st Sam. 3 – Also, note the correlation drawn between Eli’s eyesight and the Lamp of God almost burning out just prior to God speaking to Samuel in vv.2-4.

[34] cf. Isa. 1:16-20

[35] cf. Isa. 6:9-11

[36] cf. Isa. 53

The Imagination of Man January 5, 2009

A favorite text among lay critics is Genesis 11:1-9 (the Tower of Babel narrative). Some, in an act of textual isolationism, claim that the text is concerned solely with the origin of multiple languages; others, anthropomorphizing exceedingly above and beyond what the text presents, state that “the God” of the narrative is neither omniscient nor omnipotent; still others are drawn to make the erroneous conclusion that God is fearful that these men might literally reach into heaven once they have completed the building of their tower!

Now, if there’s anything that annoys me to no end, it’s sloppy textual analysis, myopia, and falsity – i.e. the only factors that can make the above positions regarding the “Tower” narrative tenable. Sloppy textual analysis may have more to do with an individual’s lack of experience, so I can forgive that sort of ignorance when I see it; however, when people disingenuously froth and foam at the mouth defending an erroneous position that they have reached only by refusing to consider alternative methodologies (i.e. myopia) or by flat out lying about the text, I find it just a tad bit harder to take them seriously. If someone doesn’t believe, has no interest in ever believing, and will not believe even if they are shown to be wrong on every pseudo-point they raise, why should I cast my pearls before swine?

But if I don’t address the “critics”, won’t I appear to be guilty of the same errors as them? Possibly. So to be fair, I thought I’d post something on this topic, seeing as I haven’t found many serious defenses of the narratival consistency and theological integrity of the Tower narrative of Genesis 11:1-9, except for a few articles that attempt to justify a historical reading of the narrative’s secondary, yes secondary, emphasis (i.e. the origination of multiple languages) and, indirectly, its primary emphasis (i.e. the imagination of man).

The Real Emphasis of the Tower Narrative

Read Genesis 11:1-9.

While the main event of the narrative is the shift from lingual unity to lingual dissonance, and from communal harmony to communal dissonance, the driving force behind this fragmentation is “the imagination of man’s thoughts” of Gen. 6:5, here alluded to in v.6, and God’s necessary intervention. The impotence of humans to do anything that is good, communally or individually, necessitates God’s intervention throughout the entire Bible, not to mention just in the first few chapters of Genesis. From Adam and Eve’s inability to fend for themselves (3:17-19, 21), to Cain’s inability to “rule over” sin (4:8-9) and on to the very real threat of being murdered thereafter (4:13-16), past Lamech’s polygamy and abuse of God’s mercy (4:23-24), which foreshadows the widespread sexual immorality (6:1-3), “corruption” and “violence” preceding the deluge (6:5-7), God must intervene if humanity is to survive. God’s intervention is always rooted in his mercy.

God’s mercy is evident, in spite of man’s sinfulness and corruption. And contrary to what your liberal theologian will tell you, these narratives are inextricably woven together, presenting us with the larger narrative of God’s image and man’s imagination. The former is what drives God to institute a judicial system meant to prevent the sin that lead up to the deluge of Gen. 6-9 (see, 9:5-6); the latter is what drove man to unify, seeing as strife and violent division were outlawed (as evidenced throughout chapters 4-6), and foolishly imagine himself able to “penetrate heaven” (11:4). If we assume, logically, that man’s imagination here is the same mechanism whereby Adam and Eve believed themselves to be free from the ramifications of their behavior (3:4-6), inspired Cain to murder his own brother (4:8-9) and, in unparalleled hypocrisy, fear a similar death at the hands of another (4:13-16), caused Lamech to believe that he could demand God’s protection and mercy (4:23-24), and inspire men to live in violence and corruption (6:5-7), then why would any reader assume that the “imagination” of the tower builders is any less impotent and heading toward only one logical destination: violence and corruption against man by man, made in the image of God?

Man’s imagination in the book of Genesis, as well as throughout the Bible, is fully corrupt, giving him the ability to do only one thing: sin.

In fact, here’s an interesting piece of scripture for those who would claim otherwise:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

- Romans 1:18-25

Doesn’t this settle the issue?

Theological and Narrative Consistency in the Book of Job November 16, 2008

I began re-reading Job after encountering criticisms regarding the text’s apparent narrative and theological inconsistencies, only to find that such criticisms were without any real foundation. Although I can see why a superficial reading of the text will, no doubt, leave the impression that the narrative is internally inconsistent.

Critics of the text’s consistency argue that the stylistic and theological simplicity of the opening and closing narratives (respectively, chapters 1, 2 & 42), in contrast to the complex poetic style and theology of chapters 3-41, give evidence of two or more theologically opposed authors. The author of the opening and closing narratives (Author 1) is orthodox, while the poetic author (Author 2) is said to be an opponent of the Author 1’s orthodoxy.

Yet, if this criticism holds true, then the book can no longer be read as a serious assessment of the problem of human suffering, but must be read ironically. In essence, the book of Job would be stating that human suffering is pointless, seeing as humanity is the play-thing of the Divine and evil is rewarded while good is not. The final conclusion would present us with a picture of God that is at drastic odds with the rest of Scripture; a God who acts “without cause”.

But is the book of Job really theologically and narratively inconsistent, or are we, rather, not reading the text closely enough? Are we, like Job, so enmeshed in the rapid succession of painful events in chapters 1 & 2 that we are dizzied to the point of losing sight of who God is? The structure of the book of Job is, I think, the key to understanding what the author is intending to convey.

Dealing with Apparent Inconsistencies

Not surprisingly, the above (liberal) reductionist interpretation fails once we inspect the text a little closer and realize that the first chapter, arguably the most important chapter (seeing as it is the foundation for understanding the ensuing dialogical cycles and the epilogue) is structured as a chiasm, at the center of which stands a dialogue between God and Satan in what is, presumably, the heavenly court of God.

A. Job’s Righteousness (1:1)
B. The Birth of Job’s Children (1:2)
C. Job’s Wealth (1:3)
D. Job’s Children, Their Feasts, and his Oblations and Prayers (1:4-5)
E. The God-Satan Dialogue (1:6-12)
D’. The Continued Feasts of Job’s Children (1:13)
C’. The Loss of Job’s Wealth (1:14-17)
B’. The Death of Job’s Children (1:18-19)
A’. Job’s Righteousness (1:20-22)

Let’s summarize what we see here:

Righteous Job (1:1) makes atonement for his unrighteous children (1:4-5) to a righteous God who, in verses 6-12, initiates conversation with Satan and places “everything”, but Job’s very life, in his hands.

Without the heavenly court scene, we observe Job’s children feasting (1:4), Job praying and sacrificing for them (continually, 1:5), their persistent questionably sinful feasts (1:13), and their death (1:18-19) while engaging in such behavior. Now with the heavenly court scene, we are given a glimpse of who allowed the deaths of Job’s children, while they engaged in such behavior – God.

Although their sin is merely a possibility in the mind of Job, the manner in which they die is consistent with other Old Testament narratives that emphasize the unexpectedness of God’s judgment upon the consistently unrepentant, in spite of those who intercede and make sacrifices for them (consider the “days of Noah” that Christ refers to in Matthew 24:37-39, God’s unexpected destruction of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9, or the judgment brought upon Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18).

God is in no way gambling with Job’s life, or playing a game with Satan. He is utilizing Satan as an instrument of His judgment upon Job’s children, while refining Job’s faith.

Interestingly, and adding some extra weight to the above interpretation, Job finds his antithetical parallel in Eli, the wicked priest of 1st Samuel. Regarding their similarities: the two men are in a position where they must make atonement for the sins of their children, which are related to, and juxtaposed against, sacrifices made to the Lord. Regarding their differences: Eli is wicked but Job is “blameless and upright”; Eli is aware of the sin of his children and does nothing about it and, accordingly, dies shortly after they die(1st Samuel 2:27-36, 3:11-14 & 4:11-18), while Job is uncertain, by his own admission, as to whether or not his children have “sinned and cursed God in their hearts” and, accordingly, makes sacrifices for them continually and, in spite of his immense suffering, does not die when his children do (Job 1:4, 2:6 (particularly, “…you must spare his life”) & 42:12-17).

Verses 6-12 Tie Together All the Supposed Loose Ends

1. They indicate the righteous judgment of God (seeing as they are situated between mention of Job’s continual sacrifices and the continual questionable behavior of his children, followed by their death). Let it be noted that this interpretation preserves God’s righteousness in that it proves that He has a twofold purpose(i.e. i.) judging Job’s children for their sin, and ii.) testing Job’s faith), while more traditional interpretations lump Job’s children together with his “substance”, objectifying them and, thereby, diminishing God’s righteousness.

Let it further be noted that it is Satan who, for no reason, tries to incite God against Job (2:6), and that God utilizes Satan’s hatred and jealousy against Job for His own Just and Righteous purposes. There is a reason for suffering, even if we become so enmeshed in the rapid succession of painful events that we forget this fact.

2. These verses, therefore, also speak of God’s sovereignty over the “sons of God”, “Satan”, and mankind, working all things for His glory and for the good of those who love Him.

3. They also powerfully reinforce orthodox theology regarding God’s benevolence toward the righteous, seeing as Job’s children are judged, but he is spared (2:6).

A Final Thought

I think that it is highly unfortunate that “scholars” can read William Faulkner’s “The Sound and the Fury” and interpret it structurally, but refuse to grant an ancient author the same ability to convey meaning by using two different styles of writing (while Faulkner uses four). The styles of expression, in both books, are directly related to the existential situations of the characters and, when juxtaposed, reveal a rich, consistent concept (or, in Job’s case, theology) that ties together otherwise (apparently) loose ends.