Ouch!

”And Jabez was more honorable than his brethren: and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, ‘Because I bore him with sorrow.’ And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, ‘Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that Thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me!’ And God granted him that which he requested. (1 Chronicles 4:9-10 King James Version)

“. . . and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain!, And God granted him that which he requested.” (1 Chronicles 4:9-10 New King James Version)


The two bold translation portions above reflect different interpretations of the Hebrew grammar (the infinitive verb form with a pronominal suffix). The suffix, a 1st person singular personal pronoun, translates both as “me” and “I” in the above readings. The pronoun can be interpreted as the KJV translates it (the object of the verb form, “me”) and as the NKJV translates it (the subject of the verb form, “I”). The infinitive verb form can be justly translated “hurt,” “pain,” “grieve,” so this is not an issue in what follows.

In evaluating these translations, the KJV has the advantage of translating the verb actively in keeping with the sense of the Hebrew verb stem (Qal). The NKJV, however, translates the verb with causation that would normally be identified with a different verb stem (Hiphil). By using the text’s verb stem (Qal), however, the NKJV could still have kept the subject use of the pronoun, but it would have had to insert a direct object for the verb, such as, “that I may not pain [others]!” It appears that the NKJV translators conveniently used the causation idea to avoid inserting a word not in the Hebrew text.

A third interpretation possibility is that the author was being intentionally ambiguous so that both the object and subject ideas can be understood in the reading of the text. As in all such cases, the context becomes the deciding factor in selecting the preferred interpretation.

One reason why Jabez was highlighted by the chronicler was the fact that his life defied the “painful” implication underlying his name, “and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, ‘Because I bore him with sorrow [ literally, pain].’” He became exceptionally honorable despite the public humiliation and reputation his name provided. Jabez did not want to experience pain (KJV, object) or pain others (NKJV, subject). These two ideas necessarily interrelate. Jabez knew that the acquisition of land belonging to a less-fortunate family (see Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Vol. 1, pp. 166-167) could hurt others and consequently bring about the very thing he sought to avoid—living up to the negative reputation imbedded in his name and suffering the pain of societal rejection.

Given the possibility that the two interpretations of the Hebrew text interrelate, one could supplement the English translation to bring out the fuller meaning. Consider this alternative: “and that You would keep me from evil, so that I neither experience pain nor hurt others.” In that “God granted him that which he requested,” Jabez presumably lived a happy and respected life on his newly acquired property.

The Biblical Interpreter & Occasional Queasiness

Exegesis (Bible interpretation) is the application of proper hermeneutics to the original text of Scripture for the purpose of declaring its intended meaning. All of the interpretation steps involved are designed to accomplish this goal. However, sometimes when all is done, the interpreter still scratches his or her head wondering why the conclusions arrived at seem less than final. Has all that there is to know about the text been discovered? This leads to the interpretation principle called “exegetical questioning.” If one can discover by questioning the text the particular area of uncertainty, he or she can potentially resolve the queasiness. Exodus 7:19 (New American Standard Bible) illustrates this process.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.’”

This passage seems straightforward, yet there is a vague something lurking in the background. Is this uncertainty related to the syntax? No, each term seems properly related to its context. Word meanings? Yes, and in particular the words translated “reservoirs of water” that appear to repeat what has just been said (tautology?), “their pools.”

A feminine form of the Hebrew word for “reservoir,” spelled מִקְוָה, occurs in the Old Testament only in Isaiah 22:11. It is not used in the Exodus passage. The masculine form of the word appears. Why? Being familiar with Hebrew vocabulary, the exact same spelling exists with another word meaning “hope” or “security,” something that would not have been true with the feminine word. Was this a purposeful word selection or merely a coincidence? To follow through on this further question: Is there any reason why the 1st plague upon the waters of Egypt should be an attack upon the Egyptians’ hope or security? This now becomes a historical question.

C.E. DeVries, writing in the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, “Nile,” states:

It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the river for Egypt. The Nile touched nearly every facet of Egypt[ian] life and gave to Egypt[ian] culture many of its characteristic features. In ancient times the recognition of dependence on the river led to the deification of the stream under the figure of the god Hapi, represented as a well-fed man with pendulous breasts, bearing offerings of the products of the river.

Would the ruination of the waters of the Nile that fed most other fresh water sources cause the Egyptians to lose their sense of security and hope? Indeed yes! A survey of the numerous commentators shows that the conflict between Moses and Pharoah at heart is a conflict between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt. It would not be overreaching to conclude that Moses used the word מקוה (lit. “confluence [of waters”] and “hope/security”) to indicate both ideas, an Amphibologia (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 804), a statement with two meanings both of which are true. This would then be an exceptionally powerful statement occurring as it does at the first plague.

Questions, questions, questions, leading to more questions! This is the nature of biblical interpretation! I am reminded of Sidney Greidanus’ pointed remarks (The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1988, p. 17):

Of course, interpreters understand texts only by asking questions and receiving answers. Asking the right questions is of crucial importance, for asking the wrong questions will undoubtedly result in receiving wrong answers. One of the weighty issues in hermeneutics is, therefore, how to ask the right questions.

Competent biblical interpreters must ever pursue truth, and often this means asking key questions and searching out the answers to those questions.

Good Try!

That well-know quip, “You cannot please everyone all the time,” apparently was untrue for the Apostle Paul, if we can believe the New American Standard Bible (NASB) at 1 Corinthians 10:33, “. . .just as I also please all men in all things.” It would be phenomenal if we could discover how he did it—if he did do it.

The correspondence of the Apostle clearly indicates that he had his detractors—

Romans 16:17-20; 1 Corinthians 4:2-21; 2 Corinthians 10-12; Galatians 3:1-6; Philippians 1:15-17; 3:2-4; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:14-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 4:1-5; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:16-26; 4:14-16; Titus 1:10-16.

How can we explain the apparent contradiction between the statement of Paul as seen in the NASB and his contrary testimony elsewhere?

Perhaps Paul was exaggerating the truth or using hyperbole for emphasis. But the context of the verse does not readily permit this conclusion. Or, perhaps the NASB translation can be “blamed” for this apparent Pauline contradiction.

The New International Version (NIV) interpretation of this verse suggests this last possibility, “. . . even as I try to please everybody in every way.” Clearly, trying to please all is very different from actually pleasing everyone. The key difference is in the word trying.” Can it be justified?

The present aspect of the verb in question, to please, can be understood as a tendential present that refers to an act or event contemplated, proposed, or attempted but not actually accomplished (Brooks & Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 86). In this light, the NIV translation is both justified and probable. It correlates well with the context here and with Paul’s statements elsewhere.

Did Paul please everyone all the time? No! The Greek text justifies this conclusion even when a popular English translation misses the mark.

Divine Anguish

When English translations all agree, is there reason to look at the Hebrew text? Genesis 3:9 reads:

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, “Where art thou?” (KJV)
And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, “Where art thou?” (RSV)
Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” NASB)
But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” (NIV)

The story is familiar. Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree. Upon hearing the sound of Yahweh in the garden, they hid among the trees out of fear knowing that they had disobeyed. Yahweh called out to them asking where they were, and they responded with the excuse that they hid because they were naked.

Although a number of theological questions could be asked about this event, the present question is whether or not anything can be gained by looking at the Hebrew text which reads:

וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָה אֱלהִים אֶל־הָאָדָם וַיאמֶר לו אַיֶּכָּה׃

On an initial reading there is little to get excited about. But a closer examination of the final word opens up a profound truth. When seen this passage can never again be read unemotionally.

The original writing was without vowel points and the last word in the unpointed text of this verse contains a clear double reference. The word in the pointed text stands for the interrogative particle "where?" (אי) plus a somewhat rare form of the 2nd masculine singular pronoun "you" (כה). However, another word consists of the same consonants איכה and that word has various meanings: the interrogative adverb of manner, "in what manner?"; the interrogative adverb of place, "where?"; and the exclamation, "how!". As an exclamation איכה is the title and theme of the book of Lamentations!

Not only did God confront Adam and Eve in the garden making them face the consequences of their sin—alienation from Him. He also experienced the pain of separation. The word translated “where?” is also an exclamatory cry of anguish, “how!”, a cry reflected in the incomplete sentence of Genesis 3:22 “And now lest he sends forth his hand and takes also from the tree of life and eats and lives forever. . . .” It is as if God is unable to verbalize the judgment implied. This divine anguish continues to Calvary and only finds relief in Revelation 22 when the people of God enjoy God’s presence forever as they partake of the tree of life in the midst of the garden.

The story of original sin is as much a story of God’s pain as it is of mankind’s disobedience. Maybe when we reflect upon this aspect of Genesis 3 we will be able to appreciate the heinous nature of our own sins. And, yes, there is reason to consult the Hebrew text even when the English versions agree.

“Spring Up, 0 Well!”

My previous post (Sermons in Sounds) emphasized the sounds of the Greek language in the New Testament that, when observed, speak volumes about the writers’ emotions, and emotions are a definite part of the interpretation of the text. In this post I focus on the sounds of the Hebrew language in the Old Testament. Given the nature of Hebrew, about which I won’t expand upon now, sound issues become much more pervasive in the Old Testament. Hopefully this post will reveal some of the fascinating aspects and interpretive benefits of hearing the Hebrew text.

Most English translations of Numbers 21:17-18 separate the final line of the poem as transcribed in the Hebrew Bible and simply make it a part of the continuing wanderings narrative. Without this last line, however, the poem is rendered nearly meaningless. With the last line the poem carries significant theological weight. Note the Hebrew text followed by the English Standard Version translation:

עֲלִי בְאֵר עֱנוּ־לָהּ׃ [Line 1]
בְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִים כָּרוּהָ נְדִיבֵי הָעָם בִּמְחקֵק בְּמִשְׁעֲנתָם [Line 2]
וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה׃ [Line 3]

“Spring up, O well!—Sing to it!— (Line 1 of the Hebrew text)

the well that the princes dug,
that the nobles of the people delved,
with the scepter and with their staffs.” (Line 2 of the Hebrew text)

And from the wilderness they went on to Mattanah (Line 3 of the Hebrew text but not part of the poem in the ESV. The italics are mine and are absent in the original text.)

One key to the function of the poem is found in the sound correlation between the preceding statement of verse 16 “that I may give them water” and the name of the place Mattanah. Mattanah is a derivative of the verb meaning to give (nathan /נתן) and draws a significant sound parallel (mattanah מַתָּנָה/ettanah אֶתְּנָה).

A second key to the poem’s meaning is found in the fact that the place name Mattanah is also a noun meaning gift,no difference in spelling (מַתָּנָה), and again, a derivative of the verb meaning to give (nathan /נתן).

A final key is the fact that although Mattanah is in the desert the last line says that from the wilderness, utilizing a preposition of separation, they went to Mattanah. The continuing itinerary shows, however, that they never left the wilderness (cp. verse 23).

This poem was meant to encourage the wilderness wanderers and point them to Yahweh’s continuous provision for their need and the fulfillment of His promised gift of the promised land. Finding water while wandering in the desert was a great comfort for the thirsty Israelites. Leaving water to continue the wilderness trek could be fearful. It is significant that the very next place on the itinerary is a place that points both to the present gift of water, and to the upcoming gift of the promised land after they finish their journey. As such, the poem focuses on Yahweh’s providential care for His people both in the present as well as in the future. They can continue their journey with confidence in the present with an encouraged eye of faith for the future.

When the last line of the poem is unrecognized in the English translations, the poem perhaps becomes simply an exuberant reflection of finding water in the desert, in itself not an insignificant theme. When the last line is recognized, however, the poem is a powerful theological statement of God’s provision for His people and His faithfulness to His promises.

This post is not meant to cast fault on the English translations or translators. It is virtually impossible for any English translation to capture the nuances imbedded in the sounds of the Hebrew text. Hopefully, what it does is to emphasize the importance of being able to see and hear the Old Testament in all of its original glory and beauty! Another New Year’s goal—take a course in biblical Hebrew!

The Dark Side of Christmas

“Chestnuts roasting on an open fire,” “Joy to the World,” “Jingle Bells.” Couple these ubiquitous songs with the ringing of the Salvation Army bells, the gleeful shouts of excited children browsing toy stores with their harried parents, the chatter of cash registers, and the ever-present bustling crowds and you have—Christmas. Christmas is to be a time of joy and celebration, a time of family gatherings and sharing lives. Perish the thought that there could be a “dark side” to this holiday season.

But a dark side there really is. Frank knows about this dark side. As he drives by the houses decked with lights he remembers how it used to be—the family outing to cut the perfect tree, the making of “lists” of hoped-for presents, the subterfuge of playing Santa on Christmas Eve, the Christmas Day feasting and gentle table-banterings. That was last year. This year there will be no tree-cutting adventure, perhaps there will be no tree at all. There may be some vague hope for a gift or two, expectations are at an all-time low. Santa suits are out. The Christmas feast will be a Denny’s “special,” and afterwards, perhaps, there will be the visit across town to give some presents to Millie and Matt who live with their mother and step-dad. Yes, Frank knows about this dark side of Christmas. Christmas is not the “happiest time of the year” but the worst time of the year.

This dark side of Christmas has a biblical referent which is usually left out of the Christmas pagent. We see the children role-playing wise men, shepherds, Herod, Joseph and Mary, and, of course, the Christ child. We do not usually revisit Bethlehem one to two years after the Christmas event to witness the slaughter of the innocent children. Why inject pain into such a gloriously joyful season? But this is exactly what Matthew does in 2:16-18, and in doing so he focuses the real meaning of Christmas in dramatic fashion.

After the wise men returned to their own land another way to escape King Herod (2:12), Matthew records the migration of the holy family to and from Egypt and ties it to the words of the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” Since the events narrated in 2:13-15 could be coupled very nicely with 2:19-23 and the return of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Nazareth without including verses 16-18, the question must be asked, “Why did Matthew insert this dark and painful event into the Christmas story?”

The reason for Matthew 2:16-18 lies in one fact and in the answer to one question. The fact—Matthew was writing his gospel in large measure for the benefit of the Jewish people. Given this Jewish context, the quotations from the Old Testament are designed to draw connecting links between previous prophecy and present events so as to focus the Jews on the Person of Christ, the Fulfiller of the ancient Messianic promises. Clearly this connection is seen in 1:23; 2:6-7; and 2:15; as well as in 2:23, even though the exact Old Testament referent for this last passage is obscure. The question—How does Jeremiah 31:15, the quotation in 2:17-18, fit into Matthew’s development of the Christ-child story?

Jeremiah 31 is a major Old Testament touchstone for the future of the nation of Israel. The high point of the chapter is the description of the New Covenant in verses 31-34 that begins thus:

Behold, days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant, unlike the covenant I made with their fathers in the day I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, even though I was their husband,” declares Yahweh.

This certain future, however, proceeds from the immediate context of national defeat, humiliation and imminent exile. Verse 15 is the centerpiece of this travail:

Thus says Yahweh, “A voice in Ramah is heard—lamentation, weeping marked by extreme bitterness; Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are not.”

The village of Ramah, located about five miles north of Jerusalem on the Water-parting Road, the north-south highway, was an assembly point for the deportation to Babylon in 586 B.C. (Jeremiah 40:1). Here Ramah is a symbol for that soon-to-be national tragedy. Rachel also is used in this passage as a national symbol. Keil (The Prophecies of Jeremiah, vol. 2, p. 25) explains:

Just as the people are often included under the notion of the “daughter of Zion,” as their ideal representative, so the great ancestress of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh is here named as the representative of the maternal love shown by Israel in the pain felt when the people are lost.

The lamentation and weeping without even desiring to be comforted dramatizes the enormity of the events associated with the forthcoming Babylonian Captivity. Yet this painful prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15 is surrounded with glorious promises of future blessing. In fact, the very next verses appear emotionally incongruous, even cruel, in their exhortation:

Restrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for there will be a reward for your work,” declares Yahweh, “And they shall return from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for your future,” declares Yahweh, “And children shall return to their own border."

Thus we have in the center of Jeremiah 31 both the greatest national tragedy and the greatest national blessing existing side-by-side!

Matthew’s quotation in 2:18 is stated as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15. Since Ramah and Rachel are symbols in the Jeremiah text, the nature of that fulfillment cannot be related to the specific town or person mentioned. Instead the fulfillment must connect with the symbolism—Israel and the exile. Matthew’s use of this symbolism in verse 18 stems from the equating of Jesus with Israel in verse 15 by quoting Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called My son.” In other words, Jesus is the embodiment of the nation and the “exiled” son who returns to His own land. The “Slaughter of the Innocents” event with its quotation from Jeremiah becomes a pointer for the Jewish readers to the national pain that their forefathers and they experienced through disobedience as well as an indicator that the child Jesus is the locus for the fulfillment of the promised blessings. The Herodian outrage at Bethlehem, then, was not itself the antitype of the prophecy Matthew cites but the occasion for citing the prophecy concerning Israel’s future. The readers surely identified with the grief over the Bethlehem event as their forefathers did over the deportation in 586 B.C., but they were forced also to relate Jesus’ return out of Egypt to the promise of eventual blessings for the nation. Jesus becomes the key figure for that eschatological event, and this is what is meant by the fulfillment motif. In Hagner’s words (Matthew 1-13, p. 38),

Again, in Matthew’s perspective, Jesus is understood as summarizing the whole experience of Israel as well as bringing it to fulfillment. Every strand of hope and trial in the OT is woven together in the eschatological appearance of the Promised One.

Carson (“Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 95) speaks to the hope aspect:

Jeremiah 31:15 occurs in a setting of hope. Despite the tears, God says, the exiles will return; and now Matthew, referring to Jeremiah 31:15, likewise says that, despite the tears of the Bethlehem mothers, there is hope because Messiah has escaped Herod and will ultimately reign.

He continues:

The tears of the Exile are now being “fulfilled”—i.e., the tears begun in Jeremiah’s day are climaxed and ended by the tears of the mothers of Bethlehem. The heir to David’s throne has come, the Exile is over, the true Son of God has arrived, and he will introduce the new covenant (26:28) promised by Jeremiah.

In this sense, Matthew’s insertion of the tragic Bethlehem slaughter dramatically punctuates the meaning of Christmas. There is both pain and promise necessarily associated with this yearly celebration.

If pain and promise both are part of the Christmas story as presented by Matthew to his Jewish audience—disobedience with its terrible consequences and salvation by God’s grace—pain and promise is also part of the Church’s theology of Christmas. Paul reflects in Galatians 3:13-14:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law when he became a curse for us—for it stands written, “Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree”—in order that the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

With a broader brush Paul continues in 4:4-5:

But when the fulness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son who was born of a woman and who was born under law, in order that He might redeem those under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Christ was born to be crucified, to experience our pain, so that we might have life. The essential but often neglected symbol of Christmas is the cross. That Christ came to die points to the pain; that Christ came to save points to the promise. Christmas is a pain and promise event.

The pain and promise of Christmas has a Jewish connection through Matthew and Jeremiah and a Church connection through Paul. But there is also a contemporary connection—Frank. The pain associated with Christmas arrives every year, but along with the arrival of pain is the promise of life—not only the promise of eternal life, as blessed as that is, but also the promise of an abundant life. “I [Christ] have come”—the Christmas event—“that they might experience life, and might experience abundant [life]” (John 10:10b). What Frank needs to realize is that Christmas brings not only pain but also promise, and the promise exists for him. Perhaps he needs a pointer, as did Matthew’s Jewish readers, to the locus of the promise, Jesus Christ. Once he sees Him maybe then will he be able to focus on the positive instead of the negative aspects of this “happiest time of the year.”

Tithing Is Not About Money!

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglected the others." (Matthew 23:23, NASB)

What connection did Jesus see between tithing and justice, mercy and faithfulness? F. F. Bruce provides the following suggestion (The Expositor's Greek Testament, I, 282, slightly altered):

“The idea seems to be: [the Pharisees] made a great show of zeal in doing what was easy, and shirked the serious and more arduous requirements of duty.—[the justice, τὴν κρίσιν], righteous judgment, implying the love of righteousness, a passion for justice—[the mercy, τὸ ἔλεος], sadly neglected by Pharisees, much insisted on by Jesus.—[the faithfulness, τὴν πίστιν], in the sense of fidelity, trueheartedness. . . .”

This commentator apparently sees a peripheral connection between tithing and justice, mercy, and faithfulness. However, the historical basis for tithing would reject this in favor of a direct connection between these issues.

The Old Testament mentions three different tithes: one for the Levites as their inheritance instead of land, one for the poor as a social program of financial aid, and one for the people to finance a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for one of the three required annual feasts. These three tithes equate to Jesus' terms justice, mercy, and faithfulness respectively.

This historical understanding of the background of Matthew 23:23 is reflected by the Greek definite articles, the, used in the Greek text of Matthew 23:23 but not included in the English translation. The articles ask the reader to think in particular terms rather than general ones. Thus, justice is specifically tied to the first tithe, it is unjust to rob Levi of his inheritance; mercy, to the second tithe, the people of God are to be merciful to the poor in their midst; and faithfulness, to the third tithe, attendance at the annual feasts was required under the covenant and an issue of covenant faithfulness.

The conclusion of this study is that the connection between the tithes and the definite concepts mentioned by Jesus are hidden to the English Bible reader because the translations do not include the definite articles which could have been done, though awkwardly, in English—the justice (focus of tithe 1), the mercy (focus of tithe 2), the faithfulness (focus of tithe 3).

The conclusion of this investigation is that there is a very real connection between financial stewardship and justice, mercy, and faithfulness. The rest of the New Testament confirms this connection. In a significant way financial stewardship is really not about the money but about spirituality.

You can study this topic further by consulting: Wretlind, Dennis O. Shekels, Dollars & Sense, available at Amazon.com.