Inductive Study on the Book of Amos

Part 1: Table of Contents

Part 2: Analysis of the Book’s Structure
The majority of the book contains prophecy written in the form of Hebrew Poetry. This is shown by the poetic device graded numbers in the initial proclamation of judgement against the Judah, Israel, and its surrounding in the first two chapters: “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment” (Amos 1:3, ESV). Furthermore, this is seen in the numerous uses of the various forms of parallelism throughout the whole book. The content of these prophecies, as well as whom they are addressed to helps to distinguish the major sections of the book. Also, the various narrative interludes that the author includes help to frame the prophecies, and also aid in distinguishing the section.

The first major section of the prophecy contains judgements against the nations surrounding Judah and Israel. After an introductory note, judgement is proclaimed against Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, the Ammonites, and Moab. These judgements follow a particular pattern, opening with the graded numbers poetic device “For three transgressions of… and for four, I will not revoke the punishment”, followed by the transgression of the offending nation, and closing with the judgement that will be sent against it.

While Amos 1:3 to 2:3 contained judgements against surrounding nations, Amos 2:4 turns the attention to Judah and Israel. These two judgements (verses 4-5 for Judah and 6-16 for Israel) follow the same poetic patterns of the earlier judgements against the surrounding nations. And so, they really ought to have been included in the previous division. However, as the shift is made to these two nations consisting of the people of God, I felt it deserved its own category. Nonetheless, what is clearly being shown in the first two chapters of Amos is that that there is no distinction between Judah, Israel, and its surrounding nations. They have succumbed to sin just as much as the evil nations surrounding them, and are just as deserving of punishment. This is reminiscent of a theme that was seen in the Book of Judges, the “Canaanization of Israel”. Although the people of Israel were supposed to transform the land of promise, they actually were themselves transformed by the land as a result of their apostasy from Yahweh.

Indeed, for that reason, not only does Israel deserve punishment as much as the surrounding nations, it will receive more. This is announced in the third major section, from Amos 3:1 to 4:13. This section is distinguished by the author’s narrative interlude in 3:1, “Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt” (ESV), which is different from the previous “Thus says the Lord” interludes that separated the previous pronouncements. Furthermore, the poetic structures change in the following judgements from being started by the graded number poetic device to just various forms of parallelisms. This section contains warnings against Israel.

The fourth major section, Amos 5:1 to 5:15, is also distinguished by the author’s interlude in which he first laments over their judgement, and then announces several ways for them to live: “Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said” (Amos 5:14, ESV). This hopeful section is short lived, however, as Amos 5:16 begin a new section of judgement that ends in 6:18. This section contain several subsections, following the initial pronouncement of judgement in 5:16-17, Amos 5:18 to 6:7 contain three woes directed to what seems to be the nobility and religious elite of Israel. Those who “desire the day of the Lord” (5:18), who are “at ease in Zion” (6:1), and who “lie in beds of ivory” (6:4). The section closes with a pronouncement of God’s punishment against them.

The sixth section of the book, the whole of chapter 7, turns its attention on the prophet Amos, who begins by attempting to intercede for the people of Israel, but who is then accused by these same people. Verses 1-6 alternates between Amos describing the destructive judgement that the Lord plans to deliver upon Israel, followed by Amos pleading for the Lord not to go through with that judgement, and then by the Lord relenting. Finally, the Lord shows Amos that he will be setting up a standard – a plumb line – in the midst of Israel, a standard which apparently the people will not be able to live up to. Indeed this is shown immediately as a short narrative sequence shows officials turning against Amos. To this, God makes the pronouncement “Israel shall surely go into exile from its land” (Amos 7:17, ESV).

This makes way for the next section, Amos 8:1 to 9:10, which declares that the end is nearing for the kingdom, and Israel will soon be destroyed. This prophetic section is marked by much poetry in the form of parallelism. It is not all bad, however, as the prophecy ends on a hopeful tone in the last section (separated for content, though part of the same poetry/prophecy) from Amos 9:11 to 9:15. This final section promises that a remnant shall remain and be restored to the land.

Part 3: Theme of the Book
The overwhelming theme of the book of Amos is the apostasy of the people of Israel and the coming judgement that will result from it. As already mentioned above, the book opens with a pronouncement against surrounding nations which, because of its poetic structure, indicates that at least part of Israel’s offence is how much it had become like the apostate nations around it. The further warnings against Israel in the third and fifth sections of the book, and even the fourth section which describe how one might “live” through the coming calamity, continue to build the case against Israel.

In terms of what Israel has done to deserve this punishment, the third section indicates that by and large, Israel has been oppressing the marginalized of society (Amos 3:9 & 4:1). This is made worse by their hypocrisy in continuing their religious service and sacrifices to God: “Offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do, O people of Israel!” (Amos 4:5, ESV). Most clear, however, is that these two sinful acts are symptoms of Israel’s true problem: their growing distance from the Lord. This is shown by the fifth section which declares how the people might live through the calamity: “Seek the Lord and live” (Amos 5:6).

As if these prophetic pronouncements were not enough, a short narrative section goes on to illustrate further how bad the people of Israel have become. In Amos 7, despite successfully interceding for Israel, Amos is accused of conspiring against the nation. To this, the Lord responds: “You say, ‘Do not prophesy against Israel, and do not preach against the house of Isaac.’” (Amos 7:16, ESV). This is then followed by the final judgement that the Lord pronounces against Israel.

Part 4: General Observations and Theological Insights
Despite the clear pronouncement of judgement against the clearly shown apostasy and evil of Israel, glimmers of hope can be seen in the book. Though the images of punishment and destruction that abound throughout Amos seem terrifyingly finite, the Lord does not forget his promise, and what the perpetuation of the people of Israel means to that. It is first seen in the “Seek the Lord” passages of Amos 5, where the possibility of surviving the judgement is shown. It is further seen in Amos’ attempt to intercede for the people of Israel, attempts to which the Lord relents, until Amos is accused of conspiracy. Most powerfully, though, is the prophecy of a remnant that will survive. It truly shows that while all is lost, it is not lost for all.

Another theological theme that can be discerned from this scripture is God’s concern for the oppressed and marginalized, and the inherent connection between that and the people’s apostasy. It would seem that the book of Amos is teaching that a sure sign of turning away from the Lord is the neglect of those of society who are most in need.

Part 5: Ideas for Preaching or Teaching
If I were to preach or teach through the book of Amos, I would likely do so thematically, rather than going through the book verse-by-verse. Although that kind of exegetical work can be accomplished, doing so would require going through large sections of text and would be quite time consuming. Rather, a “biblical theology” approach of looking at the large theological themes (as outlined above, and whatever else can be drawn out by even closer study of the book) would be preferable.

Additionally, it would surely be an excellent book from which to teach about social justice and how it is connected to the Gospel and to right Christian conduct, indeed as it says in James 1:27, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (ESV)

Basic Translation

Verse 5: and / to be (PAI 3sg) / the / message / to be (AAI 3sg) / to hear (PerAI 1pl) / from / him / to announce (PAI 1pl) / to you / for / God / of light / to be (PAI 3sg) / and / darkness / in him / not / to be (PAI 3sg) at all

Verse 6: If / to say (AAS 1pl) that / fellowship / to have (PAI 1pl) / with him / and / in / the darkness /to walk (PAS 1pl) / to lie (PDI 1pl) / and / not / to practice (PAI 1pl) / the truth

Verse 7: If / but / in / the light / to walk (PAS 1pl) / just as / he / to be (PAI 3sg) / in / the light / fellowship / to have (PAU 1pl) / with / each other / and / the blood / of Jesus / the son / of him / to cleanse (PAI 3sg) / us / from / all / sin

Verse 8: If / to say (AAS 1pl) / that / sin / not / to have (PAI 1pl) / ourselves / to lead astray (PAI 1pl) / and / the truth / not / to be (PAI 3sg) / in / us

Verse 9: If / to confess (PAS 1pl) / the sins / of us / faithful / to be (PAI 3sg) / and just /so that / to forgive (AAS 3sg) / us / the sins / and / to cleanse (AAS 3sg) / us / from / all / unrighteousness

Verse 10: If / to say (AAS 1pl) / that / not / to sin (PerAI 1pl) / liar / to make (PAI 1pl) / him / and / the word / of him / not / to be (PAI 3sg) / in / us

Full Translation

So, this is the message which we have heard from him and are announcing to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. If we say that we have fellowship with but we walk in darkness then we are lying and are not practising the truth! But if we walk in the light, just as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of his son, Jesus, cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we do not have sin, then we lead ourselves astray, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just so that he might forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, then we make him a liar and his word is not in us.

Cathy Ramos

Basic Translation

Verse 1: What / to be (IAI 3sg) / from / beginmning / what / to hear (PerAI 1pl) / What / to perceive (PerAI 1pl) / the eyes / of us / what / to look at (ADI 1pl) / and / what / hands / of us / to touch (AAI 3pl) / converning / the word / of life

Verse 2: And / the life / to reveal (API 3sg) / and / to see (PerAI 1pl) / and / to bear witness (PAI 1pl) / and / to announce (PAI 1pl) / to you / the life / the eternal / which / to be (IAI 3sg) / with / the father / and / to reveal (API 3sg) / to us

Verse 3: What / to see (PerAI 1pl) / and / to hear (PerAI 1pl) / to proclaim (PAI 1pl) / and to you / so that / and / you / fellowship / to have (PAS 2pl) / with / us / and / the fellowship / but / our / with / the father / and / with / the son / of him / Jesus / Christ

Verse 4: And / this / to write (PAI 1pl) / to you / in order that / grace / of us / to complete (PerAS 3sg)

Full Translation

What was from the beginning: what we have heard, what we our eyes have seen, what we looked at and what our hands touched concerning the Word of Life… Yes! The life was revealed! We have seen it. We bear witness to it. And we are announcing it to you! It is Life Eternal that was with that was with the father. It’s what was revealed to us. What we have seen and what we have heard we are proclaiming also to you so that you may have fellowship with us. Indeed, just as our fellowship is with the father and with his son, Jesus Christ. We are writing this to you so that our joy might be complete.

The first chapter is titled ‘Introduction: The Need to Interpret.’ What the authors were indicating is that we need to interpret the Bible so that we can know what God is saying to us. They use the words ‘plain meaning’ to describe what we take, or rather should take, when we read the Bible. The book argues that because of the nature of us readers and the nature of the Bible one needs to get into the process of exegesis and hermeneutics to properly arrive at this ‘plain meaning’.

They continue to explain the nature of the readers and the nature of the Bible. First, the nature of the readers is that we are human. This means that because we have different experiences in life we bring our own subjective views when reading any kind of text. One of the examples they use is when the Bible uses the word ‘cross’, one usually imagines a Roman shaped cross because of the culture’s art. While in reality, we don’t really know what the actual shape was. Although a minor detail in terms of the grand picture, we can start to see how other words can be subjectively shaped incorrectly.

The book follows with the nature of the Bible. We as Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but at the same time God used humans to write it out. Understanding both these facts is important. Examples are given of when the Bible is interpreted ignoring one of these facts. When the Bible is just taken from the human side, then it becomes like any other history book. When the Bible is taken as strictly from a Holy God, then it becomes a list of rules. Realizing that God spoke to actual people in history gives the Bible both authenticity and a challenge.

The Bible was written using many different literary types by God to speak to people. The challenge comes when interpreting from a certain literary type. We must recognize which type is being used and realize that interpreting one form, for example a psalm, will be different from another, let’s say a law. Also God spoke to different people at different times. This means that a certain word would have a specific cultural meaning to the original people the text was written for.
The book introduces the process of exegesis and hermeneutics to help us arrive at the ‘plain meaning’. Exegesis means understanding the original meaning of the text in relation to the people it was written for. Hermeneutics is applying those same words in our culture today.

The authors go on to say that exegesis is commonly used by everyone. The problem is that it is being used too selectively only on text that seem to need it, rather than on all parts of Scripture. The other problem is that sometimes unreliable sources are used to arrive at a final exegesis.
The process of good exegesis is presented as being able to read well in general and ask the right questions. Historical and literal context are what one should keep in mind when asking questions. Historical context are relevant factors of the author’s setting and literal context means that words are defined within sentences and sentences within their paragraphs. The authors add that content is also important and we must ask what is the author’s intent in the words he/she uses. Three tools they suggest to assist in exegesis are a good Bible translation (or several), a Bible dictionary and a good commentary.

The book continues with a preface to the following chapters and goes on to state the importance of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics preceded by good exegesis avoids people interpreting the Bible subjectively. We are given examples of bad interpretations of the Bible because of a lack of good exegesis and hermeneutics. While some of these are easily seen with common sense, it is clear that we must have a concern whenever the Bible is interpreted.

We must carefully and prayerfully interpret the Bible to find out what God is really saying to us. I believe these authors presented their argument well and I agree with them about the importance of properly interpreting the ‘plain meaning’.

Land and Landlessness in Genesis-2 Kings

The theme of land and landlessness is central in the books of Genesis to 2 King. In fact, it might even be said that it is a central theme in the whole Hebrew Bible, as well as in Israel’s history in general. It would be quite difficult to give an account of the major points in Israel’s history without reference to the land, and the place it held in Israel’s identity as a people and even in relationship with the Lord. Abraham’s call in Genesis 12 is at the root of this. In verses 1 to 3, the Lord makes several promises to Abraham after commanding him to leave his homeland and to travel to the land which the Lord will show him. This land is revealed to be the land of Canaan, which the Lord also then promised to give to Abraham’s offspring.

And so, in these verses in Genesis, we can already begin to see the theme of land taking a central role in the history of the people of Israel even before it has even completely taken shape. We have an imperative from the Lord to go to this land, accompanied by several promises, essentially to be blessed and to be a blessing to the world. At this point in the story, however, land seems to have been of secondary consequence; that is, it would seem that the Lord’s promises of blessings came as a result of Abraham’s obedience to leave his family and his homeland to travel to Canaan. The story continues and Abraham does not stay there, but is forced to leave due to a famine. He travels to Egypt where he has an unfortunate incident (also unfortunate because it would not be his last) with lying about his wife. Upon his return to Canaan, he and his nephew Lot separate and he resettles in Canaan. At this point, the Lord seems to have elevated the land to be a part of his promise to Abraham. In Genesis 13:14-17 the Lord restates the promise to Abraham.

The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.” (ESV).

At this point, it has become clear that land will be playing a truly central role in Abraham, and the people of Israel’s relationship with the Lord. This promise is confirmed several more times to Abraham and his son and grandson, Isaac and Jacob. At each of these confirmations, the land is firmly included in the promise (for example, in Genesis 26 to Isaac and Genesis 28 to Jacob).

This promise does not come without any requirements, however, and in the rest of the Torah, we see the promise being elaborated upon by the Lord. Genesis ends with the people of Israel living outside of the land, in Egypt, and Exodus begins some time later with the people of Israel being oppressed and looking for relief. The Lord raises up a saviour for them, Moses, who took them out of Egypt, and was supposed to take them into the Promised Land. Unfortunately, due to the people’s lack of faith in the Lord, that generation who left Egypt would not enjoy the benefits of the land. I am talking of course, about the drama of the twelve spies in Numbers 13 and 14.

Twelve men – one from each of the tribes – were sent into the Promised Land to spy it out. Unfortunately, they would return with a disheartening report: while the land is indeed “flowing with milk and honey”, its people were strong and numerous, making it difficult for Israel to conquer it. Ten of the spies then go on to incite rebellion among the people of Israelites, with only two – Joshua and Caleb – remaining faithful and urging the people on to trust in the Lord and conquer the land. They reiterate the Lord’s promise to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: “      The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. If the Lord delights in us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey” (Numbers 14:7b-8 ESV). These two men are repeating the Lord’s promise to the people, but they refused to listen, the result of which is that the people of that generation will not be able to enter into the land and are cursed to wander in the wilderness until everyone in that generation dies, except for Caleb and Joshua (Numbers 14:28-32).

Here, we have a clear example of conduct being linked to retention of (or that is, in this case, acquiring of) the land. The people of Israel rebel against the Lord, and are punished for it by not being allowed to enter into the land. This is an extreme example of the conduct of the entire nation affecting their status in the land. Punishment of this magnitude (complete removal from the land) will not again be seen until the time of the Prophets and the two exiles.  Nonetheless, it is not the only place in the law where the theme of land is seen affecting the laws which are placed over the people, as other places in the law show the Lord’s concern for the people’s place in the land. For this, I can think of no better example than the laws of levirate marriage and kinsman redemption.

The law of levirate marriage and kinsman redemption are found in Deuteronomy 25 and Leviticus 25, respectively. The provisions are quite simple. In levirate marriage, a brother is to produce an heir with his brother’s widow if he were to die childless. This is done, first of all that the widow does not end up marrying a stranger, and also in order that the dead man’s name “may not be blotted out of Israel”. In kinsman redemption, a provision is made for a “redeemer” to redeem the property of a man who has become poor and sells part of his property. The preamble to this law provides insight into the reason why it was given (and elaborates further on Deuteronomy 25 as well). The Lord says: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.” (Leviticus 25:23-24 ESV).

Here, it is clearly seen that land is at the centre of these laws: it is a point in which the Israelites can actively participate in ensuring that the land remains within Israel. By performing these required acts as redeemers and protectors, the Israelites ensure that their land remains in their hands. Certainly, these are not the only provisions which speak of the land in the law. Along with these laws which encourage an “active” form of participation, are laws which are more “passive” – actions to avoid, in order not to lose control of the land. The long list of unlawful sexual relationships in Leviticus are an example of this, as the Lord declares: “        But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you… lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Leviticus 18:26 & 28 ESV). Indeed, it would seem that the majority of the provisions in the law are in this “passive” form of ensuring that the land remains with them. Thus, near the end of his ministry, Moses declares to the people of Israel: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20 ESV). Here, clearly, it is not just the Lord’s directives, but a clear understanding of the people that they will be living in the land as a result of their relationship with the Lord.

It is incredible how quickly the people would forget this word. The book of Joshua turns the story to Moses’ assistant, Joshua, who would be the leader of Israel to begin the conquest of the Promised Land. What starts out quite well in this book, however, disintegrates quite quickly in the book of Judges. In that book, the people of Israel lose faith in the Lord and begin to do what was evil the eyes of the Lord. Resulting from this is a cycle of the Lord raising up agents of oppression against Israel, who would then make life difficult for the people in the land, forcing them to turn back to the Lord for deliverance. The Lord would then raise up a judge, or redeemer who would bring peace in the land for a short time.

These cycles in Judges show the law at work, where the people are suffering consequences in the land, as a result their lack of faithfulness to the Lord. At this point, again, their faithfulness does not reach its fullest, as it had , earlier in Numbers when the people rebelled, resulting in their not being allowed into the land, and as it will later on during the time of the two exiles. Several different nations oppressed the people of Israel in the book of Judges, with the Philistines standing as the final oppressor – fitting, as they would become the main enemy of Israel in the books that follow Judges. While most of the cycle of judges (especially the later) do not explain the kind of oppression the Israelites suffered, it was pretty much understood to have to do with the land. An example of this is in the Gideon cycle. Judges 6:3-4 explains: “For whenever the Israelites planted crops, the Midianites and the Amalekites and the people of the East would come up against them. They would encamp against them and devour the produce of the land, as far as Gaza, and leave no sustenance in Israel and no sheep or ox or donkey” (ESV).

There are several reasons for the oppression that are given for the people of Israel doing “what was evil in the sight of the Lord”. One reason is that they failed to completely conquer the land as they had been directed, allowing some of the former inhabitants to remain. At the end of the book, another reason is given: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25 ESV). Thus at the end of Judges, part of the reason for the people’s behaviour – and thus, by extension, their problems maintaining a foothold in the land, is the absence of a king. And so, having a king in Israel is directly linked to the peoples ability to remain faithful to the Lord, and again, to their continued hold of the land.

Before getting right in to the account of the kings in the united monarchy, however, a small book, Ruth, is inserted in the canon. A short story, the book of Ruth seems to have had multiple reasons for being written. And within these reasons, we can discern to be associated to the theme of land and landlessness. As I have already stated above, part of the way in which people can actively ensure that the land remains in the hands of Israel is obeying the commands of levirate marriage and kinsman redemption. And here in the book of Ruth, we see both principles working out in the relationship between Boaz and Ruth. Boaz is shown to be a faithful man who does his duty as a family redeemer, marrying Ruth and buying Elimelech’s property in order to keep it in the hands of Israelites. But more than that, in addition to these active ways in which Boaz acted faithfully, are also the passive ways – not succumbing to unlawful sexual relationships. In the end, the book of Ruth stands as the exemplar of how it is that the people ought to have been acting in order to maintain the land. It is no wonder then that at the end of the story, it is revealed that Boaz and Ruth are actually the great grandparents of King David.

The age of the monarchy in Israel has a rocky beginning. Though it does indeed answer the concern which Judges had – that their problems were the result of having no king in Israel – how the first king, Saul, came to rule was certainly not ideal. The people demanded a king, and  the Lord agrees, allowing Saul to be crowned.

It is quickly evident, however, that despite Saul being crowned king, their troubles in the land are not over. The Philistines make a comeback as Israel’s enemy, causing the people much distress: “When the men of Israel saw that they were in trouble (for the people were hard pressed), the people hid themselves in caves and in holes and in rocks and in tombs and in cisterns, and some Hebrews crossed the fords of the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. Saul was still at Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling” (1 Samuel 13:6-7 ESV). Saul has his ups and downs – his times of triumph and defeat. But overall, he is unable to provide the security for the land that the people had longed for because he was rejected by the Lord. It wasn’t until the shepherd boy, David, who, despite his many failures, the Lord did choose as a man after his own heart, that the people would finally find this security in the land.

Nonetheless, there never really was peace in David’s lifetime as problems within his family marred the expansion of the kingdom that he was able to achieve. Evidence of this is the Lord not allowing David to build him a temple – the symbol of his presence within the land. And it is not until David’s son Solomon became king that this would happen: “          You know that David my father could not build a house for the name of the Lord his God because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet. But now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side. There is neither adversary nor misfortune” (1 Kings 5:3-4 ESV). Nevertheless, this would not last very long as very soon after, the kingdom would be divided, Israel would be exiled, and the temple destroyed. But that part of the story is for another time…

In summary, this essay tried to show that the theme of land and landlessness was an important one in Genesis to 2 Kings. It began with the Lord’s promise to Abraham in Genesis, continued to the laws in the Torah which would actively and passively allow the people to maintain a hold in the land, which was seen working out in the ups and downs of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. To finally, the Lord’s very presence in the temple which Solomon built.

Jesus and Judaism: The Essenes

The Essenes were a Jewish sect that existed for approximately three hundred years between the second century BCE and the end of the first century CE. Little is known about the sect; and in fact, the term “Essene” does not even occur in the New Testament. Nonetheless, important Greek and Latin writers such as Josephus, Philo, and Pliny describe the sect in their writings. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 at the Qumran caves on the northwest shores of the Dead Sea, many scholars have tended to associate the community living at Qumran with the Essenes.[1]

The Jewish historian Josephus provides the most extensive descriptions of the Essenes. In his work The Jewish War, Joseph describe the Essenes as a group living out strictly disciplined lives: “These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue.”^[2] They also seem to prefer solitude and celibacy; so their means of growth is primarily through enlisting “other persons’ children”. They don’t however seem to reject marriage altogether (or at least part of the sect did not).[3] They do reject wealth, choosing to live ascetic lives, and holding their property in common (in fact, this was a law in the community). They seem to also take purity laws seriously, allowing it to affect what substances they come in contact with and how they dress as well. They do not seem to have a centralized location, but are scattered through out various cities, though they do move around from time to time.

They are probably best known for their piety towards God, and follow what seems to be a daily monastic routine, and are quite disciplined in their interaction with each other:

Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their house, but they give every one leave to speak in their turn; which silence thus kept in their house, appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery… [and] They dispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion.^[4]

They do not exclude others, though potential members are not easily admitted. They must live like an Essene for a year and must prove themselves to be allowed to partake in some of the rituals. They are further tested for another two years before being fully admitted to the group.

There is not very much information given about the socio-economic status of members of the Essene community, though given the description of their daily lives, it would not be hard to imagine the Essene being somewhat similar to the early church. They probably mostly poor, though they might occasionally be able to attract a wealthy convert who would, as required, share his wealth with the community. There does not seem to be any mention of employment in their routines, though their frugal and austere lives would probably mean that the group could do with very little. Furthermore, they were most likely revered as holy men and were most likely provided the benefits of such a status, such as donations of food.

The Essenes seemed to have respect for the temple, though not necessarily for the priests who were running it: “when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices, because they have more pure lustrations of their own.”^[5] It would seem that they consider their own piety to be greater than that of the priests, and would not allow the priests to offer their sacrifices for them. This must have caused some tensions with the governing Jewish authorities. Indeed, they were “excluded from the common court of the temple.”[6] They certainly had a high reverence for the Torah, and even have a law subjecting anyone who “profanes” Moses’ name to capital punishment.

The Essenes believed that they had an immortal soul that is confined to their bodies, seeking release: “[souls] are united to their bodies as in prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement”.^[7] They believe that their good conduct will be rewarded after their death, and that bad conduct would be punished. There is nothing in their belief system that suggests a strongly held eschatological hope. Rather it would seem that they strive for the what they believe in that comes after death, and their austere lives are the means of getting there.

Because of all these I would guess that the Essenes probably would not have thought highly of Jesus and his disciples, for although they held some similar beliefs – namely, a similar distaste for the ruling authorities – they would have differed considerably in their beliefs about conduct. For example, Jesus’ declaration and call “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel”[8] would have fallen on deaf ears. The Essenes likely would have had no concept of a kingdom of God “coming at hand”, and would have rather looked towards the afterlife for this fulfillment. Furthermore, Jesus’ call to repent would not have made sense to them as their strict discipline would have lead them to believe that they did not have anything to repent from.

Their distaste for Jesus and his followers would likely have also been fueled by Jesus’ reaction to the woman anointing him with costly perfume in Mark 14:3-9. They likely would have reacted like some of the disciples who responded: “Why was the ointment wasted like that? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii2 and given to the poor.”[9] Surely, their austere lives would have blinded their eyes to Jesus’ explanation that the woman was anointing his body for burial.

Taking the law and ritual purity to an extreme might have also placed the Essenes at odds with Jesus, who regularly interacted with impure people. They would have likely seen Jesus dining with sinners as abhorrent. On other ritual matters, they probably would have likewise questioned Jesus on fasting, like those who did in Mark 2:18-22, and would have certainly wondered at some of Jesus’ teaching about the Sabbath, though not necessarily objected to it in the same way the Pharisees did.

What probably would have placed the Essenes most at odds with Jesus is his “low view” of Moses in comparison. In terms of teaching, they may have been confused with what Jesus was doing. For example, Jesus affirmed Moses’ teachings, such as his interaction with the Pharisees in Mark 7, when he used Moses’ teaching against the scribes. But then, they would have been concerned when Jesus reinterpreting or taking Moses’ commandment about divorce in Mark 10:4 too far. What probably would have solidified their opinion of Jesus on this matter would have been that Jesus elevated himself above Moses to equality with God, as is suggested in him forgiving the sins of the paralytic in Mark 2:5, when he seems to declare himself as God’s son in Mark 8:38, and generally the times when Jesus referred to God as “Father”, such as in his prayer in Mark 14:36.

In conclusion, I believe that Essenes would have had mixed feelings about the Jesus of History as presented in Mark. They would have seen Jesus and his disciples as both allies and rivals: allies against the Jewish authorities whom they likely believed to be wrong in their theology and practices, but rivals in their interpretation of the law and of conduct. As such, I think some Essenes would have grown to accept Jesus’ message, and may have even converted to Christianity, while others would have hated Jesus and his message.

Penal Substitution

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13-14

In chapter eight of The Apostolic Faith, David Yeago begins his discussion on the atonement by taking a look at two theories of atonement which he deems inadequate. The second theory, and the subject of this essay, is the doctrine of penal substitution. Yeago builds his case against this doctrine on three points: (1) that it creates a conflict between God’s love and justice, (2) that it presents the goal of Christ’s atoning work as God changing his attitude towards sinners, and (3) that scriptural support for Christ’s death as the substitution for punishment is weak.

In this essay, I will argue that Yeago does build a convincing case against penal substitution as an explanation for atonement. He does an inadequate job of presenting the strengths of penal substitution, choosing instead to present and counter points that work to his advantage when he goes on to present his own model of atonement. I will show that his first two points do not actually discredit or disprove penal substitution. In fact, the alternative that he proposes for these two points would seem to harmonize quite nicely with the doctrine. Furthermore, his third point – that the scriptural case for substitutionary punishment is weak – is itself ironically weak, as it relies merely on the argument that the scriptural conclusions made by proponents of penal substitution are “illogical”, rather than being based scripture itself.

Yeago’s first objection against penal substitution is that it places God’s love and justice in conflict with each other. This is wrong, he argues, because actually, what we must focus on is God’s love rather than his justice: “God is not composed of multiple attributes which could be in conflict with one another; the whole reality of God is the reality of his love” (Yeago, 305). Yeago quotes Ernst Sartorius in support for his statement, but makes no attempt at any further justification.

He then further argues that the result of this conflict is misconstruing God’s role as similar to a human judge in a criminal trial. This judge, because of the restrictions of the rule of law, would not be able to acquit the guilty, leading to the suggestion that there is a higher principle or standard (an “order of civil law” or a “civil community”) to which God is subject. An alternative model which Yeago suggests is to instead view God as both the plaintiff (the wronged party) and the judge (the standard of justice by which judgment is passed). In this way, God would not be “bound to inflict punishment for the wrongs done to him personally” (ibid). This is an important point on which Yeago would later build his own model of atonement.

These points of criticism which Yeago brings up against penal substitution are problematic. First, his declaration of love as the composition of God’s reality is not necessarily an argument against God’s justice. This is because scripture affirms that God’s love leads him just as much to punish wrongdoers, as it leads him to mercy. Indeed, his punishment can even be seen as an act of mercy in itself: “My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline or be weary of his reproof” (Prov. 3:11, ESV). To be sure, this verse refers to the Lord’s discipline for the purpose of correction, but at the same time it does provide a basis for God to be taking “retributive” action which Yeago’s argument might seem to exclude. More importantly, this tension between love and justice which Yeago denies seems to actually be a part of the Lord’s declaration of his own character, as he reveals himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6b-7: The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation. (ESV) Clearly this tension is not merely a man-conceived notion about the Lord with which we must struggle.

The second problem with Yeago’s criticism is his solution of declaring the Lord both judge and plaintiff; Not the solution is wrong, but that it cannot be proposed as a solution exclusively for his own model of atonement. While it is certainly true that proponents of penal substitution most often conceive of God as the judge who imposes penalties for sins, it does not follow that these same proponents would disagree with Yeago’s vision of God as judge and plaintiff. In fact it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that they would agree with Yeago’s assessment of God’s role in relation to sin, but for different reasons. I believe that the in the penal substitution model, the fact that God is also himself the injured party serves to elevate the magnitude and grievousness of sin: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” (Ps. 51:4, ESV). In contrast to this, Yeago uses the fact to advance his argument that God, being both the injured party and standard of judgment, can choose not to inflict punishment, relegating a different purpose to the atonement, the satisfaction of our honour before God.

Closely related to this first Yeago’s first objection to penal atonement is his second: that the result of the conflict between God’s love and justice is the need for God to be reconciled to us, rather than the need for our being reconciled to him. Yeago argues that this is wrong because there is a shift occurring on “whose problem” the need for redemption is: “The problem of redemption, which Christ’s death addresses, is thus located, in a certain sense, in God rather than in us: it is because God is obligated by his own justice to be angry with sinners and punish them that we are in need of redemption” (Yeago, 305-306; author’s emphasis). In effect, God is the “bad guy” here, because he is unable to overcome the demands of his justice and simply forgive sinners. He then further argues that this “reversal” stands in contradiction with the doctrine of penal substitition’s own insistence that it is sin that we need to be saved from.

The unwritten conclusion here is of course that proponents of penal substitution believe that it is actually God that we need to be saved from, and not sin. And in a sense, even using Yeago’s earlier argument that God is both plaintiff and judge, this is true. The question is, is God at fault for this? Well, let me begin to try to answer that with another question: “Would it be the fault of Niagara Falls if I drowned trying to swim in it?” Certainly not! For it would my own foolishness, knowing the dangers of this act, that would do me in. Likewise, it is not God’s fault that he is holy and just, and we are sinful and deserve punishment. It would be hard to imagine a proponent of penal substitution trying to argue otherwise.

What then of Yeago’s assessment that the reversal in penal substitution means that God needs to change his attitude towards us. Well, it is likewise true in a sense. But problematic, it is not. As Yeago himself says of God in chapter three of The Apostolic Faith: “According to Israel’s Scriptures, YHWH has chosen to meet his creatures within the wordly, historical space which has he (sic) created for them to inhabit. He chooses to draw near to them and speak to them and live out a history with them” (Yeago, 111). To be sure, in this chapter, Yeago is speaking of God’s interaction with his chosen people, Israel. But nonetheless, it seems odd that he would so readily apply this notion of God choosing to draw near to a people who repeatedly disappointed God and turned away from him, but not to an understanding of atonement in which God chooses to draw near to his people by appeasing that within himself that would not allow him to do so. Sin is very much the problem that we need to be saved from, and Jesus’ atonement indeed takes away this sin allowing us to be reconciled to God. But it is true that in a sense, this does mean that God’s justice is the one we need to be saved from – through no fault of his own, and that he draws near to us because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

Yeago’s final, and weakest, argument against the doctrine of penal substitution is the perceived illogicalness of the scriptural conclusions made by its proponents. His argument is simply this: “when Scripture says that Jesus ‘bore our sins in his own body on the tree’ it does not follow that he bore them in order to render to divine justice a proportionate punishment for sin” (Ibid, 306). This is striking because in effect, Yeago argues that penal substitution lacks a scriptural basis by himself choosing not to appeal to scripture. Instead, he corrects the “illogical” conclusions that penal substitution makes, quoting 1 Peter 2:24 along the way. Again, here Yeago falls well short of making his case by not presenting a stronger scriptural case for Jesus bearing the divine punishment for our sin. He could have, for example, chosen Colossians 2:13-14 to struggle with: “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (ESV). Here, scripture clearly states that God forgave our trespasses by certain legal demands being made against us by nailing these demands to the cross.

In this essay, I showed that David Yeago’s arguments against penal substitution were incomplete and inadequate, and were unable to disprove the doctrine. He made two arguments and proposed two solutions, both of which I showed were not really arguments against penal substitution at all, but can just as easily been shown to be arguments for it. This is because it seemed that his purpose in this chapter really was not to convincingly disprove the doctrine, but to advance a case for his own model of atonement. Yeago then went on to make one final, shorter, argument concerning the scriptural conclusions made in the doctrine. This, I found was itself ironically weak in scripture, as he chose to merely to make logical conclusions about one passage used to defend penal substitution, but not to struggle with the strongest passages that do the same.

In this essay, I had not attempted to disprove Yeago’s model of atonement: satisfaction of our honour before God. Though I disagree with some points that he makes – especially that God, as both the wronged party and the standard of justice by which judgement is passed can simply forgive sins – I do believe that in some sense he is correct in asserting that part of the purpose of atonement is to correct the dishonour our sin does to our relationship with God. Thus, if it had been in the scope (and within the space limitations of this assignment), I believe that it would be have been possible to find harmony between Yeago’s satisfaction model and with penal substitution. Nonetheless, Yeago erred on this point: that he simply did not present penal substitution in its strongest points. He merely presented those points that, with his refutations, served to advance his purpose.

Paper 2: Conscious vs. Immersion Catechism

Part 1
Roughly the first two thirds of the Heidelberg Catechism can be seen as elements representing the turn to “conscious training”. These questions cover the topics of sin, salvation, the Trinity, and the Sacraments, and are presented in a logical way that stands in stark contrast with the “narrative” form of the catechism of the past. Only the last third of the catechism – the questions dealing with the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer – might be considered as questions that can be taught by “osmosis”, and for a good reason: except for introductory questions (such as Question 92, which actually lists out the Ten Commandments), these questions largely consider Christian conduct and prayer, which can be seen and imitated by catechumens.

The very format that Heidelberg Catechism is written in, questions followed by answers, lends itself to being communicated primarily through class, memorization, or cognitive means. Reading the catechism, one might imagine catechumens grilling a catechist with these questions. Certainly, the catechism seems to follow a certain logic in which a question draws on preceding questions and their answers. This systematic approach highlights the shift to conscious training as it seeks much more to engage the hearers in reasoned discussions about the doctrines of the faith.

One further indication of this shift to conscious training is the shift to using scripture as “proof text” rather than to draw the doctrines from its narrative. The catechism is certainly based on scripture, as the scripture proofs when laid out is always longer (sometimes much more so) than the actual answer given to the question. Clearly the scriptures laid out in this way is not meant to provide a narrative backing to the answer, but rather to prove that it is correct. Indeed, the parts of scripture that the catechism draws its proof from is also indicative of this, as it would seem that much more of the instructive and doctrinal epistles of the New Testament are used than the narrative Old Testament.

Part 2
As mentioned above, the latter third of the Heidelberg Catechism are much better communicated through the process of community immersion. Question 93, concerning the Ten Commandments, state that the commandments are subdivided into teachings concerning behaviour towards God and behaviour towards our neighbours. Later on, in question 116 the focus shifts to prayer. It first deals with the necessity of prayer in general, and then goes on to consider the Lord’s Prayer in particular. In contrast to the rest of the catechism, these questions concern behavioural matters than can be demonstrated to, and thus imitated by, catechumens and children.

More than this, however, these questions would also benefit from the “narrative” form of catechisms found in Augustine’s On Catechising the Uninstructed and The Teaching of Gregory the Illuminator. The narrative character of these catechisms, coupled with the systematic approach to behavioural issues of the Heidelberg Catechism might be quite helpful for some of the more logically minded, while at the same time, not delegating Scriptures to the role of proof text. An example of this might be seen in Question 106, which is part of the section that concerns the sixth commandment. It asks “But this commandment seems only to speak of murder?” If the narrative approach to catechism was being used either in the lead up to asking this question, or as a way to answer the question, then the answer would undoubtedly include Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount equating anger with murder (Matthew 5:21-22).

Part 3
In my workplace, Chapters, one of the primary means of selling products (Chapters has been shifting largely from just a bookstore to a “gift and lifestyle retailer”) is “telling stories”. One of the ways that this works itself out is that we, as salespeople, are expected to be able to relate to our customers and make recommendations by “telling stories” that might open up the product to them in a different way than just stating its strengths and uses as a product. I believe that this has a lot to do with our society’s suspicion of those claiming to be authoritative.

As such, I think that narrative forms of the catechism, at least at the beginning of Christian formation, would be a much better fit today. Furthermore, where the tendency of a church is to emphasize correct doctrine, the church might also tend to lose sight of the narrative of scripture (as it views it merely as a source for proof texts) – especially the Old Testament. An example that comes to mind is a girl in my College and Careers group who came from a heavily “doctrinal” church. When she began attending our group, we were going through Habakkuk, and her reaction at the realization that all of scripture points to Christ was quite remarkable. “No one ever told me this!” she exclaimed, “not my pastor, parents, or Sunday School teachers”.

Because of this, I firmly believe that narrative catechism must be an important part of Christian formation, at least at its early stages. Not only does it satisfy the societal desire to be taught by stories, but it also ensures that believers are immersed in scripture and have an understanding of the flow of redemptive history. However, at some point, believers must be able to move on from spiritual milk, for having “tasted that the Lord is Good” (2 Peter 2:3, ESV), they can thus grow deeper in their knowledge of the faith. This is where memorizing and investigating doctrinal points should be. Having seen God worked salvation out in history, they can then look deeper and understand how and why.

Exploring the Kerygma: Part 2

Section 1
Four elements of the core kerygma can be clearly seen through a cursory reading of Matthew 27:45-60. Most obviously, Jesus’ death is at the forefront as it is the account of his crucifixion. In addition, there is a statement establishing that Jesus is the Messiah as the centurion utters in amazement: “Truly this was the Son of God!” (27:54, ESV). Also, it is also explicitly stated that several witnesses were “looking from a distance, [witnesses] who had followed Jesus from Galilee” (27:55, ESV). Finally, Jesus’ burial was narrated at the end of the pericope. Of these four elements, Jesus’ death and burial really stand as the main emphases, as this pericope is, after all, an account in which Jesus’ death is central. However, it does seem that the author did take care to mention that certain people were watching from a distance, emphasizing the fact that there are witnesses to this event.

While these four elements can easily be seen, a fifth one may also be discerned through careful reading and reasoning. This element is that these events are accomplished in God’s power. This is evident in the curtain being torn in two, the earth shaking and rocks splitting, and some of the saints coming back to life (27:51-53). Though these events are not explained in the passage, such astonishing events occurring at the moment of Jesus’ death can only suggest that God was supernaturally at work throughout the event.

On the one hand, several elements would seem to be missing from the passage at first reading. Foremost of this is the explanation that all of this had happened for the forgiveness of sin. Any thought of the resurrection is also missing, though to be sure, this will be covered later on in the narrative. Finally, also seemingly absent is any reference to these events fulfilling Old Testament scripture.

On the other hand, we may also see several elements being added in this account. Most curiously, there is the declaration of Jesus as the “Son of God”, which although is one of the elements of the core kerygma, who makes the declaration comes as a surprise. It is a Roman centurion and not one of the disciples, witnesses, or even a Jew who recognizes Jesus as such at the moment of his death. Another added element is in verse 50 where it says that Jesus “yielded up his spirit” at the moment of his death. This seems to suggest that Jesus was in control even of his own death, which shows his willingness to sacrifice himself to death. Finally, as mentioned above, the supernatural events occurring in verses 51-53 are not part of the core kerygma, though it may be seen as an extension of other elements from the core.

Section 2
One of the first Old Testament allusions that can be found is in verse 46 where Jesus quotes the beginning of Psalm 22. This allusion immediately answers the question of the missing element, fulfilment of scripture. It is certainly easy to see that Psalm 22 has many parallels to the crucifixion story, and is even seen by many Christians as a prophecy about the crucifixion (ESV Study Bible notes for Psalm 22). So this allusion can be seen as the inclusion of the element, fulfilment of scripture, but more than that, it can also be seen as the element of Jesus’ exaltation by God. Though it is not explicit from just the one quotation, surely readers of Matthew would have gone on to think about the rest of Psalm 22, especially verse 25, “From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will perform before those who fear him” (ESV). Following this line of argument, we might even see another missing element, that Jesus will return to establish God’s reign on earth.As it says in Psalm 22:17: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you” (ESV).

Further allusions to Old Testament verses confirm the inclusion of the fulfilment of scripture element, despite its apparent absence from the text. In Matthew 22:52-53, it says “The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (ESV). This event was clearly prophesied about in several places in the Old Testament: Ezekiel 37:12, Daniel 12:2, and in Isaiah 26:19 which says “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.” (ESV).

Looking at the wider context of some of these passages, even more of the core kerygma message can be discerned. Daniel 12 for example, is a prophecy about the end of the world, and so allusions to it in Matthew 27 suggest that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurates the last days. Furthermore, the full context of Ezekiel 37 gives an indication that it is by the power of the spirit that these last days will be lived, and also that these things are happening according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God: “And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord” (ESV).

Finally, even in how Jesus was buried – that Joseph of Arimathea buried him in his own tomb (Matthew 27:54-60), we see yet another allusion from the Old Testament, though not as solid as the previous example, when 1 Kings 12:29-30a is alluded to: “And the prophet took up the body of the man of God and laid it on the donkey and brought it back to the city to mourn and to bury him. And he laid the body in his own grave” (ESV).

Section 3
Having investigated the Old Testament allusions found in Matthew 27, it is amazing to see how masterfully the author intertwined these allusions into the narrative of what seems like a simple and straightforward event, the death and burial of Jesus, and came out with a rather complete understanding of the kerygma. More importantly, the allusions to the Old Testament helped to fill out elements of the kerygma that could not specifically mentioned in the passage, or included in the narration. The allusions really filled in the meaning of the small passage with the richness of several other important passages from the Old Testament. Finally, the very use of the passages in and of itself is an element of the core kerygma, as these allusions help to establish that Jesus’ death and burial happened according to what Jewish scripture had said.

Once again however, the resurrection of Jesus seems to continue to be of secondary importance at this point, as it is not explicitly presented nor clearly alluded to. Nonetheless, some of the elements seen, such as the inauguration of the last days and the establishment of God’s reign on earth, cannot actually be realized if Jesus did not rise from the dead. And so, despite the lack of concrete emphasis, the echoes of the resurrection can be heard, even before it comes to the forefront in the next chapter.

What seems to be emphasized in this passage, and by the Old Testament allusions found within, is what effect Jesus’ death had on the world: the allusion to the dead rising back to life and how this lead to the three prophetic passages in Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel does this. It is amazing how just one seemingly insignificant reference can be so rich in meaning! Coupled with one of the explicitly mentioned elements of the kerygma, namely the establishment of Jesus as God’s agent of final salvation, it is clear that the emphasis is that in Jesus’ death, sins are forgiven and resurrection life can be attained by those who will follow the Christ, who is establishing his kingdom on earth.

The way that Matthew 27 interacted with the Old Testament to present its message really shows that both the Old and the New Testaments go work hand in hand to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Matthew did not even need to state core kerygma elements explicitly, but simply wove them into the narrative by use of Old Testament allusions. This further shows the even the Old Testament itself is a source of the kerygma, and did not merely foretell that the coming of Jesus, it is itself part of the message of Jesus.

More practically, the use of Old Testament allusions in Matthew shows one important thing: the author expected his readers/listeners to know what he was talking about. The allusions (absent of any reference, even a general one such as “as it said in the prophets”) show that the early Christian social world is one that is steeped in Jewish scripture. More specifically, as to which scriptures were being used (and used heavily) – that is, the prophets, the allusions also show that this world was one hopeful for a time when God’s reign would soon be present. The use of Psalm 22 might be an indication of this, as it shows that the world was one in which many people were afflicted and suffering, searching and hoping for their saviour.

Chris Evangelista
Dr. Marion Taylor
WYB1008HF
1 November 2011

Inductive Study on the Book of Judges

Part 1: Table of Contents

Part 2: Analysis of the Book’s Structure

The book of Judges can be neatly divided into three major section, an opening section which contains two introductions to the book, a middle section containing six degrading cycles of apostasy, and an ending which contains stories that illustrate Israel’s apostasy. This structure can be seen in the clever use of two phrases “And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” and “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. These two phrases mark are introduced at turning points in first two sections of the story, and then go on to serve as a dividing points for the proceeding section.

The opening section can be further divided to two parts: Judges 1:1 to 2:4, and Judges 2:5 to 3:6. Both of these parts begin with the death of Joshua and both serve as introductions to the cycle of apostasy that will follow in the middle section. The first part seems to be a point-by-point presentation of the events following the death of Joshua. It shows the Israelites at first succeeding in conquering the land, but slowly falling into sin and compromise and ultimately failing in the conquest. The second part serves as a commentary of the first, introducing the key phrase which will dominate the middle section: “And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2:11). The basic plot structure of the book is further introduced as the author explains that the Lord both gives Israel over to plunderers, but also raises up judges, or saviours, to deliver them from oppression.

The middle section is divided up into six parts, with the aforementioned phrase used as the introduction on a new part. Each part represents a cycle of events in which (1) the Lord raises up an agent of oppression under whom the people of Israel lived for a certain number of years before (2) finally crying out to the Lord in agony. (3) The Lord then raises up a judge who will deliver Israel from the oppression and usher in a time of peace.

The first two cycles, narrated in Judges 3:7 to 3:31 feature the judges Othniel, Ehud and Shamgar. These narrations are the shortest of all the accounts, and represents the “high point” of the cycles – that is, before the people of Israel and even the judges themselves fall further into apostasy. In the next cycle, from Judges 4:1 to 5:31 presents the prophetess and judge Deborah, and the military commander Barak. The two chapters repeat (though emphasize different parts of) the same story: Israel defeating Jabin king of Canaan (4:2, ESV) and Jael driving a tent peg through his general Sisera’s head. In this cycle, the Israelite army commander, Barak, hesitates when called upon by Deborah to rise up against Jabin. This hesitation serves to foreshadow the reluctance of the next judge, Gideon, and also the downward spiral that the Judges themselves enter in to.

The next cycle, Judges 6:1 to 10:5 features Gideon, who questions the Lord twice about his calling (the sign of the sacrifice in 6:18-21 and the sign of the fleece in 6:36-40). Gideon goes on to defeat Midian in an incredible manner: with the Lord first whittling down the number of his army to a measly 300 men. Things do not end well for Gideon though, as he creates a golden ephod, which leads Israel astray and “[becomes] a snare to Gideon and to his family” (8:27, ESV). The sorry episode of Gideon’s family turning on each other follows this, as his son Abimelech rises up to reign over Shechem, after which the judges Tola and Jair brought peace to the land.

The next cycle, from Judges 10:6 to 12:15 begins with a clear pronouncement on the further decline of Israel into apostasy: they have begun serving the gods of their neighbours in Canaan, in addition to serving the Baals and the Ashtaroth. In this cycle however, when the people of Israel cry out to the Lord, there is a hint of remorse as they “put away the foreign gods from among them and served the Lord” (10:16, ESV) after God confronts them of their apostasy. To this, the Lord responds by raising up Jephtheh, who unfortunately makes a “deal” with the Lord to deliver up the oppressors, which then forces him to have to sacrifice his only daughter. He further gets into a conflict against the Ephramites, 42 000 of whom fell as a result. After Jephthah Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon judges Israel before the final cycle.

The final cycle from Judges 13:1 to 16:31 is the most detailed account, beginning even with the birth of the featured judge, Samson. In addition, it serves as a bridging point with the last section of Judges, as the new phrase to be used in that section is introduced in the account of Samson’s marriage to Delilah. After Samson told his parents to get Delilah for him as his wife, they respond by asking him to instead choose a wife from within Israel, to this Samson says “Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes” (14:3, ESV). Delilah turns out to be a problem for Samson as he reveals the source of his strength to her and is in turn captured by the Philistines. It is only in order to sacrifice himself and destroy the Philistines that the Lord gave back his strength (16:30).

At this point, there is a precipitous change in the narrative in Judges 17:1, as the narrative of Micah and the Levite seemingly comes out of nowhere. Partway through, though, in Judges 17:6, a clue is given as its place in the book: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. At this point, the reader/listener should remember that the phrase had already made an appearance a few chapters earlier, and that a change in the cycle has occurred. The apostasy of Israel has reached its conclusion such that their actions can no longer even be referred to as “evil in the sight of the Lord”.. The dreary closing section of the book has arrived, and these final few stories illustrate what Israel has become absent any and every thought of the Lord. The story of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19 is particularly indicative, as it echoes the story of the men in Sodom and Gomorrah. Then comes a civil war that nearly wipes out an entire tribe. Such was the state of Israel when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes”.

Part 3: Theme of the Book

The central theme of the book is grace, and it is developed in the Lord’s continued engagement with the people of Israel despite their ever deepening apostasy. And of course intrinsically linked with grace is the theme of Israel’s inability to remain faithful to the Lord. These two themes are developed by the use and repetition of the phrases “And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”, and “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”.

As mentioned above, the first phrase was used in the first section as an introduction to the middle section, where it would be used to introduce each new cycle of judges. And, while in each of these successive uses, the phrase is not elaborated on very much, this first instance of usage is quite clear what it meant for the people of Israel to do what was evil in the sight of the Lord:

And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals. And they abandoned the Lord, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the Lord to anger. (Judges 2:11-12, ESV)

Any elaboration that a cycle does makes on the use of this phrase provides further indictment against the people of Israel on this matter. For example, in the Jephthah (fifth) cycle, the narratives elaborate “…and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines” (Judges 10:6, ESV).

To this apostasy, the Lord‘s response in the middle section is to raise up an oppressor to make life miserable for Israel, and after they cried out in anguish to him to then raise up a judge to save them. This clearly shows that the Lord is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness… forgiving the iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7). This, however, by no means shows that the Lord will continue to allow the people to continue in their apostasy, as some consequences are certainly shown for their disobedience. Barak missing out on the glory of victory for trying to manipulate Deborah in Judges 4 shows this, as does the prophet calling the people of Israel to account in Judges 6:7-10.

The people’s apostasy comes to a head in the Samson cycle with the introduction of the second phrase, at which point it would seem the people’s evil deeds have taken the Lord completely out of the equation. This represents the lowest point in the apostasy cycle as Israel has completely forgotten all about the Lord and are simply doing what they thought was best for themselves. This certainly shows the development of the theme of the people’s unfaithfulness to the Lord. But what of grace? Indeed, it would seem that the Lord has abandoned the people completely in the absence of action on his part in the final section of the book. Yet even in this inaction, we may discern grace: that the Lord did not completely wipe out Israel – nor even one of its tribes. In some ways, though closing with that terribly indicting verse, the book ends on a bit of a hopeful note as the people of Benjamin were allowed to repopulate and return to their inheritance.

Part 4: General Observations and Theological Insights

One important theological insight to emerge would seem to be Israel’s tendency to take on the character of its neighbours, which would seem to explain the reason why the Lord wanted them to completely eradicate the inhabitants of the land upon conquering it. While Israel was supposed to transform the land of promise, by allowing the inhabitants to remain in the land, they themselves were transformed by the land and its inhabitants into a forgetful and apostate people, constantly turning their back on the Lord (I have read of the term “Canaanization of Israel” used to describe this process). This is clearly evident in Israel’s continued turn towards the gods of its neighbours.

Related to this theme is idolatry, which is what Israel was turning when they were turning away from the Lord. This further manifested itself in morally corrupt acts, such as those described in the final section of the book. These two theological emphases certainly continue throughout the rest of the Old Testament – indeed, if the idea of the book of Judges as describing the “Canaanization of Israel” holds true, it can be said that this is the starting point of Israel’s problems throughout the era of the kings, then the prophets, and is ultimately the leading cause for their exiles.

Part 5: Ideas for Preaching or Teaching

One of the main ways that I would preach out of the book of Judges would be to emphasize the similarities in the difficulties facing Israel in the book and the church in our modern time. As Israel is being lured away from the Lord and towards the gods of the people around them, so the church is being lured by the gods of this age: money, power, success, and sex. Certainly, the temptation is there to give in, and turn away from the Lord, forgetting the wonderful work of salvation he has done in the believer’s life. And certainly it is true that the Lord seems to have unending patience for disobedience. Yet, the story of Judges must stand as a testimony to us, not only of the danger in inciting the Lord anger, but also of the blessed life that can be had when living in obedience to him.

Some questions I would ask:

1. What are some of the marks of the church succumbing to the gods of our age as Israel did in Judges?
2. What calamities do we see arising from this apostasy?
3. What are the blessings that the church would forego in because of this apostasy?