O Sing a New Song to the Lord

On the second friday of each month, a robust, worship-filled event is hosted for evangelical Christians in southeastern Wisconsin. This event is formally known as a Community Evensong, and is represented by a handful of trinitarian, gospel-preaching, conservative churches that are committed to serving the communities of southeastern Wisconsin. It is hosted in Milwaukee, WI by Crossroads Church of God, a non-denominational church that has deep roots in Milwaukee soil. Every month at the Community Evensong, evangelical christians gather together to learn the Scriptures and to sing what they learn. The reason why I mention all of this is because last month I had the privilege of teaching at the Community Evensong for the first time. The scriptures we learned to sing in parts were from a hymn titled "O Sing a New Song to the Lord", which comes directly from the opening lines of Psalm 98. And so, my job this month was to teach that Psalm.

I didn't mention this in my message that evening, but it wouldn't surprise me if Psalm 98 was overlooked by many christians today, simply because it's a short 9-verse psalm that doesn't look much different than many other Psalms. In fact, it's so short, and so much like other Psalms, that some scholars think the author plagiarized earlier authentic Psalms for the composition of this one. For example, within it's nine short verses, Psalm 98 talks about the Lord doing wonderful things. It talks about the Lord's salvation and faithfulness, as well as His victory and righteousness. It talks about seas roaring and the waves of rivers clapping their hands together, all for the praise of God. But if you have ever read through the Psalms before, you know that you've heard all these themes before. This isn't new information. This isn't unfamiliar imagery. And so why did we bother learning this Psalm and this song for the Community Evensong event, especially if we already know what this Psalm is talking about?  The following is a brief response to that question.

Psalm 98 (ESV) is as follows:         
          ¹         Oh sing to the Lord a new song, 

        for he has done marvelous things! 

His right hand and his holy arm 

        have worked salvation for him. 

²  The Lord has made known his salvation; 

        he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations. 

³  He has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness 

        to the house of Israel. 

All the ends of the earth have seen 

        the salvation of our God. 

⁴  Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; 

        break forth into joyous song and sing praises! 

⁵  Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre, 

        with the lyre and the sound of melody! 

⁶  With trumpets and the sound of the horn 

        make a joyful noise before the King, the Lord! 

⁷  Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; 

        the world and those who dwell in it! 

⁸  Let the rivers clap their hands; 

        let the hills sing for joy together 

⁹  before the Lord, for he comes 

        to judge the earth. 

He will judge the world with righteousness, 

        and the peoples with equity. 

In order to appreciate this Psalm, it's important to first notice the way it is balanced. In the verses above, there are three distinctive units (vv. 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9). These three-part units are shown separately because this is the way it's composition would appear if read out loud from the original Hebrew scriptures. This balance of three-part units was intentional on the part of the original Hebrew author. The first unit is comprised of perfect-tense verbs, which, in English grammar, translates into past-tense verbs. In other words, the first unit is encouraging the reader in the present to look to the past and remember the past. The reader is to remember that "the Lord has done wonderful things!" (v. 1). The Lord "has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations!" (v. 2).  "The Lord has remembered His steadfast love," the result of which has been that "all nations have seen the salvation of our God." (v. 3).  All the credit of salvation, and even all the hope of God's people, rests upon God's sovereign initiative. And here, God's people are called to look back at God's loyal love to encourage their faithfulness in the present.

The second unit is comprised of imperfect, imperative verbs, which (to oversimplify what that means) is a fancy way of describing what God's people should be doing now in the present. And because this unit is filled with imperatives, it's content shouldn't be viewed as mere suggestions or whispers of advice. The text in Hebrew is actually shouting at us! Unfortunately the ESV has smoothed out the english translation of this section. More literal translations (like the NASB) are typically more helpful for understanding the emphasis of this unit. A more literal rendering of verse 4 would be:  "Shout joyfully to the Lord all the earth!!  Burst forth and sing for joy! And sing praises!"  The last verse of this unit is similarly expressed: "Shout joyfully before the King, the Lord!" This is what God's people are to do when they consider the faithfulness and lovingkindness of the Lord in times past. Our King, the Lord, is worthy of such emphatic praise!

The third unit refers entirely to the future, and this completes the balance for this Psalm. Again, some English translations have smoothed over the future emphasis contained in the original Hebrew. A better translation may be considered as follows:  "Tell the sea to roar and all it contains! Tell the world and all those who dwell in it! Tell the rivers to clap their hands! Tell the mountains to sing together for joy before the Lord! For He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and it's people with equity."  Not only is God worthy of such emphatic praise because He has proven Himself to be faithful and loyally loving to people in covenant with Him; but this passage teaches us that His praiseworthiness ought to be proclaimed from one generation to the next. The future of God's kingdom on earth is a glorious one that cannot be hindered from coming, and because of that expectation in the future, there is no reason to stop making a joyful noise in the present.

Of course, we must also keep in mind that this Psalm was written before the coming of the Messiah. Once the Messiah came, all that was merely anticipated became an inaugurated reality. This is why Jesus, at the inauguration of his public ministry could proclaim, "Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" (Matt. 3:17).  The gospel is not merely a message of personal salvation.  It is far more than that!  Keep in mind that it was a "gospel of the kingdom" that Jesus proclaimed (Matt. 3:23), and it is that gospel which his disciples proclaimed too. The disciples of Jesus today are to proclaim that gospel as well. And according to Psalm 98, we proclaim the gospel of the kingdom loud and proud in the present for two reasons: First, it's because we know exactly what God's steadfast love and faithfulness has produced in the past. Secondarily, we know that God has promised the advancement and victory of His kingdom on earth throughout the future of redemptive history. These three aspects of our Lord's kingdom -- the past, present, and future -- is what Psalm 98 is all about.  Deo Gratias.

More than five pillars

A few months ago I began a series about the literary structure of Matthew's gospel. Until now, a number of circumstances have kept me from continuing that series. And so, now that a few people have asked me to continue that series, and I have a little time on my hands to do so, I plan on picking up where I left off back then, which was a discussion about the "five pillars" of Matthew's gospel. (The three posts related to that can be found here, here, and here.)

As I mentioned previously, Matthew's gospel is structured around five major discourses, or "pillars." Each of the five major discourses is extremely obvious with a red-letter bible in hand. Just scroll slowly through Matthew's gospel with a red-letter bible and you'll see what I mean. There are five long chunks of red-lettering -- the words of Jesus -- which stand out on their own. These are the "pillars" which support the story of Matthew's gospel. And as I also noted in earlier posts (here and here) Matthew's story of Jesus is also intentionally written to cue in memories about the story of Israel. Or, as Leithart aptly titled his thesis, Matthew's gospel is the story of Jesus as Israel.

In order to appreciate the larger picture which Matthew has painted for us in this gospel, I have decided to extract some of the details in Leithart's thesis and place them below. I have also changed a few of the words which Leithart used, but all of the essential content remains the same. The five major discourses, or "pillars" of literary structure, are as follows:

1.  Matt. 5-7 = Sermon on the Mount

2.  Matt. 10 = Mission of the Twelve

3.  Matt. 13 = Parables of the Kingdom

4.  Matt. 18 = Instructions for a divided Kingdom

5.  Matt. 23-25 = Prophecy/Warnings for “The House of Israel”

If we take into account the theme of the first four chapters as well as the three closing chapters of the gospel (as noted in two previous posts, here and here), the five "pillars" of discourse would be sandwiched in the middle as follows:

1.   Matt. 1-4 = Beginnings, Birth, and Youth of God’s Son

2.          Matt. 5-7 = Sermon on the Mount

3.          Matt. 10 = Mission of the Twelve

4.          Matt. 13 = Parables of the Kingdom

5.          Matt. 18 = Instructions for a divided Kingdom

6.          Matt. 23-25 = Prophecy/Warnings for “The House of Israel”

7.   Matt. 26-28 = Death, Resurrection, and Great Commission of God’s Son 

If we were to translate this structure of Matthew's gospel from Israel's history, or, more properly, if we were to point out the shadows of Israel's life-history which Matthew is manifesting in the full reality of Jesus' life, it would look something like the following:

1)   Beginnings, Birth, and Youth of God’s Son = Genesis, Exodus, Travel to Mount

2)   Sermon on the Mount = Giving of the Law/Sinai Revelation

3)   Mission of the Twelve = Deuteronomy/Preparation for Conquest

4)   Parables of the Kingdom = Wisdom/Parables of King Solomon

5)   Instructions for a divided Kingdom = Period of Divided Kingdom

6)   Prophecy/Warnings for “The House of Israel” = End of Judah/Warnings of Babylonian Exile

7)   Death, Resurrection, and Great Commission of God’s Son = Death and Resurrection of Israel, and the “Great Commission” of the Lord’s “Anointed” (Cyrus)

The only portions which are not shown in this outline are chapters 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-22, which are simply narrative segments that provide continuity between each of the five "pillars" of discourse above. Again, with a few minor alterations to the wording which Leithart uses, the inclusion of those segments is as follows:

1) Matt. 1-4 = Genesis, Exodus, Travel to Mount

2) Matt. 5-7 = Giving of the Law/Sinai Revelation

Narrative  –  Matt. 8-9 = Wilderness Wandering   (Israel under Moses + Joshua)

3) Matt. 10 = Deuteronomy/Preparation for Conquest

Narrative  –  Matt. 11-12 = Entrance into Land/Rest + Rise of a King   (Israel under Joshua + David)

4) Matt. 13 = Wisdom/Parables of King Solomon

Narrative  –  Matt. 14-17 = Prophetic Ministry in the Northern Kingdom   (Israel under Elijah + Elisha)

5) Matt. 18 = Period of Divided Kingdom

Narrative  –  Matt 19-22 = Prophetic Ministry in the Southern Kingdom   (Israel under Jeremiah + Ezekiel)

6) Matt. 23-25 = End of Judah/Warnings of Babylonian Exile

7) Matt. 26-28 = Death + Resurrection of Israel, and the “Great Commission” of the Lord’s “Anointed” (Cyrus)

Now that the remaining narrative segments have been inserted, it should be clear that it is at least possible, if not likely from the looks of things, that Matthew has organized his gospel in a more intricate manner than many twenty-first century scholars would like to admit. Instead, Matthew has framed the story of Jesus in such a way that many of the historical events throughout his life are portrayed together as a fulfillment of Israel's story. Israel, of course, was God's firstborn "son" (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1; Matt. 2:13-14); but Israel was only a shadow of Christ, the true Son of God. Therefore, from a literary perspective, Matthew's design seems to be exactly what Leithart has posited. The story of Matthew's gospel is the story of Jesus as Israel. Of course, just saying so doesn't make it so. In the near future I intend on explaining the way in which each segment of Matthew's gospel highlights the sections as noted above. I have already started one post pertaining to the opening four chapters here, so enjoy for now.

Theology of Caroling

Pastor CJ Bowen of Christ Reformed Evangelical Church in Annapolis, Maryland has written a very good article on Christmas carol theology. Check it out at:

http://pushingafeather.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/christmas-carol-theology-joy-to-the-world/

G.K. Chesterton: The House of Christmas

There fared a mother driven forth

Out of an inn to roam;

In the place where she was homeless

All men are at home. 

The crazy stable close at hand, 

With shaking timber and shifting sand,

Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand

Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes, 

And strangers under the sun,

And they lay their heads in a foreign land

Whenever the day is done.

Here we have battle and blazing eyes,

And chance and honour and high surprise,

But our homes are under miraculous skies

Where the yule tale was begun. 

A Child in a foul stable, 

Where the beasts feed and foam;

Only where He was homeless

Are you and I at home;

We have hands that fashion and heads that know,

But our hearts we lost -- how long ago!

In a place no chart nor ship can show

Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wives' tale,

And strange the plain things are,

The earth is enough and the air is enough

For our wonder and our war;

But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings

And our peace is put in impossible things

Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings

Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening

Home shall men come,

To an older place than Eden

And a taller town than Rome.

To the end of the way of the wandering star,

To the things that cannot be and that are,

To the place where God was homeless

And all men are at home.

-- G.K. Chesterton

Pregnant with the extraordinary

"...and Judah...by Tamar ...and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of 

Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king. 

And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah."
(Matt. 1:3, 5-6)

Since it's the season of Advent, I've decided to pick up where I left off a few months ago and post a few things on my mind concerning the birth narrative of Jesus. A few months ago I wrote a post called "Israel's Expectation," and it was about the opening genealogy of Matthew's gospel and how his central focus in structuring that genealogy in it's peculiar fashion was to shed light upon Jesus as the promised King after a long eclipse of rightful heirs who had not been seated on the throne of David. But after reviewing that post again I noticed that I did not mention something which most commentators do. I did not mention the peculiar oddity of inserting female names into the genealogy which, at first glance, appears to be added by Matthew without any rhyme or reason. And to be quite honest, the rhyme and reason for these female names only recently dawned on me. And I don't know why it was only recently. I suppose I just held a long-time assumption that the listing of women was of tertiary importance. I vaguely remembered a couple biblical commentators mentioning a reason or two for Matthew's insertion of these four women in his listed genealogy, but I suppose I was just tired of hearing the same old pastoral explanations about how Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba were all sinners in need of grace, mercy, forgiveness, blah, blah, blah. The reason why it finally dawned on me to reconsider the importance of these listed women is because of a recent sermon preached at Christ Covenant Church of Chicago, which is the church of which my family are currently members.  I ordinarily don't take notes in worship, but when I do, I remember them for future use. And that Lord's Day I left with a rhyme and reason for Matthew's insertion of female names. And so, here I am sharing a bit of it with you all.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I sometimes get tired of preaching and teaching that's just blah. That's right, I said blah. And when I say blah, in this context I mean boring and unsatisfactory content that every Christian knows and doesn't need to be reminded of if the author of Scripture himself is not very clear about emphasizing it first. Ordinarily, pastors and teachers preach about Matthew's genealogy with lots of blah by merely focusing upon God's grace in saving sinners. Bathsheba, after all, is mentioned, and as we all know, she was a sinner; so Matthew's point in listing her within the genealogy must be to teach that God saves sinners, blah, blah, blah. Others preach blah with a reminder of God's desire to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile. After all, Ruth was a Moabite, and Matthew's point in listing her name must be to emphasize the breakdown of Jew/Gentile hostility, blah, blah, blah.  In case I haven't already made my point clear enough, below are a few examples of blah-messages from some popular Christians. Commenting on Matthew 1:5, which mentions Rahab and Ruth, the famous evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, wrote:

We note that two women are mentioned in this fifth verse: a Canaanite and a Moabitess. The Gentile blood mingled with the Hebrews strain. Our King has come to break down the partition wall. As Gentiles we rejoice in this.1

While it is true that both Jews and Gentiles have much to rejoice in now that our King has come, I don't think that was Matthew's point. Instead of focusing upon the Jew/Gentile distinction, John MacArthur prefers to emphasize that Matthew's purpose for including four scandalous women was to magnify God's grace. He writes:

Matthew's genealogy also shows the work of God's grace in His choosing to include four former outcasts in Messiah's pedigree. In a genealogy otherwise dominated by men, these women are exceptional illustrations of God's grace. ... [T]he genealogy of Jesus Christ is immeasurably more than a list of ancient names; it is even more than a list of Jesus' human forbears. It is a beautiful testimony of God's grace.2

This focus of interpretation is nothing new to the history of Christian commentators. Severus of Antioch, a fifth century founder of the Syriac Orthodox Church, took a similar route, only he emphasized Matthew's message as that of graciously cleansing and healing sinners. Commenting on Matthew's insertion of Tamar and Bathsheba, Severus wrote:

It is for this reason that in this genealogy the Evangelist mentioned in his list even those who had shocking carnal relations that were in appropriate and outside the law. For Matthew wrote with due deliberation. ...These were women with whom they became united by fornication and adultery. By this means the genealogy revealed that it is our very sinful nature that Christ himself came to heal. ...Christ therefore took upon himself a blood relationship to that nature which fornicated, in order to purify it. He took on that very nature that was sick, in order to heal it. He took on that nature which fell, in order to lift it up. All this occurred in a charitable, beneficial manner wholly appropriate to God.3

Most notable in its details is the lengthy commentary offered by D.A. Carson:

Inclusion of these four women in the messiah's genealogy instead of an all-male listing (which was customary) -- or at least the names of such great matriarchs as Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah -- shows that Matthew is conveying more than merely genealogical data. Tamar enticed her father-in-law into an incestuous relationship (Gen. 38). The prostitute Rahab saved the spies and joined the Israelites (Josh 2, 5); ...Ruth, Tamar, and Rahab were aliens. Bathsheba was taken in to an adulterous union with David, who committed murder to cover it up. Matthew's peculiar way of referring to her, "Uriah's wife," may be an attempt to focus on the fact that Uriah was not an Israelite but a Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3; 23:39)... 

Several reasons have been suggested to explain the inclusion of these women. Some have pointed out that three were Gentiles and the fourth probably regarded as such. ...Others have noted that three of the four were involved in gross sexual sin; but it is highly doubtful that this charge can be legitimately applied to Ruth. As a Moabitess, however she had her origins in incest (Gen. 19:30-37)... 

A third interpretation holds that all four reveal something of the strange and unexpected workings of Providence in preparation for the Messiah and that as such they point to Mary's unexpected but providential conception of Jesus.4

R.T. France seems to provide the most concise summary of Matthew's inclusion of the four women. He notes that:

But the four mothers selected for mention form a striking group. Probably all four were non-Jews (Tamar was a local girl, so presumably a Canaanite, Gen. 38:11, 13-14; Bathsheba was the wife of a Hittite), indicating Matthew's interest in the universal relevance of Jesus' coming; and in each case there were at least suspicions of some form of marital irregularity, though all four form an impressive precedent for Jesus' birth of an unmarried mother from an obscure background.5

When preachers like Spurgeon and MacArthur emphasize the grace of God in saving sinners and breaking down the partition wall between Jew and Gentile, that's all fine and dandy, but it's probably not Matthew's reason for including the four women in the narrative. And in actuality, Matthew's genealogy does not list four women anyway. It lists five women. Mary is the fifth woman listed at the very end of the genealogy, and presumably Mary is mentioned for the same reason as the other four women. "What is that reason?", one might ask. Simply put, all five female names prepare Matthew's Palestinian-Jewish audience for a shockingly scandalous event governed by the very hand of God. Surely many Jews in Judea were not familiar with Mary and her personally scandalous story before Matthew addressed his gospel to them, but they would have been familiar with the scandalous speculations and traditions surrounding Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. In other words, Matthew was ready to tell the truth about Jesus' birth from a virgin woman named Mary, as well as his miraculous conception "from the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:20). But in order to prepare his audience for a magnificently true story such as this, some echoes of invaluable information from Israel's history were in order.

Tamar is the first name listed in passing, and her story is undoubtedly sad and disturbing because of Judah's sinful refusal to give his son to her in marriage that she may bear the promised seed of Abraham (Gen. 38:26). Nevertheless the promised seed was passed through the line of Judah as promised regardless of her deception of Judah and taking advantage of one of his known lusts by pretending to be a prostitute. Likewise, Rahab the prostitute has always been associated with a scandalous lifestyle because of her previous "career" in the land of Canaan. But she repented and eventually married into the house of Judah. Ruth, a widow sojourning in the land of Moab who was also scandalized because of her loss of a husband, lack of children, and complete economic poverty, had no part of the seed of David until Boaz, of the house of Judah, married Ruth and redeemed her by purchasing all the debt and inheritance of her Israelite step-family. The fourth on the list is Bathsheba. But she, of course, was originally the wife of Uriah the Hittite, as Matthew points out. King David, who owed every aspect of his life and kingdom to the Lord, stole Uriah's wife and murdered her husband, and was judged by the Lord for it. Nevertheless, such an enormous scandal among men did not hinder God's promise or providence.

Finally, the list ends with an obscure woman named Mary. Who is she? And why is she listed among the other four women?

Well, apparently Mary is mentioned because she too has a story which can be viewed as providentially scandalous in the eyes of Israel. Mary, after all was a virgin (1:23), and Joseph knew that he was not the father of her child (1:18-19). But nevertheless, instead of making up a story to deceive the public -- like a claim that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, or that Mary really had an affair with another man -- Matthew simply highlights Mary's story with the shocking truth that Jesus, the promised King and Messiah, was anticipated as being providentially scandalous in the eyes of the public too. But just as the other four women are only mentioned in passing to highlight this general notion of scandalized providence, so Mary is mentioned only briefly for the same reason. In fact, the focus of the genealogy and birth narrative in Matthew's gospel has more to do with Joseph and his legal adoption of Jesus, the son of Mary, than it has to do with Mary herself. The mention of all five women in the genealogy is to intentionally associate them all together with regard to the promised Kingly seed that God began fulfilling with Abraham and then afterward through the line of Judah.

Surely God's sovereignty and God's grace in saving sinners is in the background of Matthew's mind when recording this historical narrative. But that's in the background of all Scripture, and it's not something explicitly emphasized by Matthew, so I recommend using caution with that kind of exclusive emphasis while interpreting the genealogy. The most natural interpretation of selecting five scandalously providential women together, and placing them within the grand opening of Matthew's gospel, is to prepare Matthew's Palestinian-Jewish audience for a story that is pregnant with the extraordinary.

1.  Charles Spurgeon, The King Has Come [New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1987] p. 16
2.  John MacArthur, The Genealogy of Grace, Notes from a sermon preached on Oct. 14, 2009. http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A287/the-genealogy-of-grace
3.  Thomas Oden, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Matthew 1-13 [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press 2001] p. 6
4.  D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984] p. 66
5.  R.T. France, Tyndale Commentary Series: Matthew [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1985] pp. 73-74

Earth felt the wound

I recently started studying John Milton's classic work, Paradise Lost, in detail, and today I came across that famous depiction of the Serpent tempting and deceiving Eve to eat of the fruit forbidden by God in the Garden. Perhaps there is no more vivid scene in the history of poetic literature which portrays the subtlety of Satan at his best; and so I had to share:

...the Tempter, all impassioned, thus began: 

O sacred, wise, and wisdom-giving Plant, mother of science, now I feel thy power within me clear; not only to discern things in their causes, but to trace the ways of highest agents, deemed however wise. Queen of this universe, do not believe those rigid threats of death: ye shall not die. How should you? By the fruit? It gives you life to knowledge; By the threatener? Look on me; me who have touched and tasted, yet both live, and life more perfect have attained than Fate meant me, by venturing higher than my lot. Shall that be shut to Man, which to the Beast is open? Or will God incense his ire for such a petty trespass? And not praise rather your dauntless virtue, whom the pain of death denounced, whatever thing death be, deterred not from achieving what might lead to happier life, knowledge of good and evil; Of good, how just? Of evil, if what is evil be real, why not known, since easier shunned? God therefore cannot hurt ye, and be just; Not just, not God; not feared then, nor obeyed: Your fear itself of death removes the fear. Why then was this forbid? Why, but to awe; Why, but to keep ye low and ignorant, His worshippers? He knows that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes that seem so clear, yet are but dim, shall perfectly be then opened and cleared, and ye shall be as Gods, knowing both good and evil, as they know. That ye shall be as Gods, since I as Man, internal Man, is but proportional meet; I, of brute, human; ye, of human, Gods. So ye shall die perhaps, by putting off Human, to put on Gods; Death to be wished, though threatened, which no worse than this can bring. And what are Gods, that Man may not become as they, participating God-like food? The Gods are first, and that advantage use on our belief, that all from them proceeds: I question it; for this fair earth I see, warmed by the sun, producing every kind; Them nothing: if they all things, who enclosed knowledge of good and evil this tree, that whoso eats thereof, forthwith attains wisdom without their leave? And wherein lies the offense, that Man should thus attain to know? What can your knowledge hurt him, or this tree impart against his will, if all be his? Or is it envy? And can envy dwell in heavenly breasts? These, these, and many more causes import your need of this fair fruit. Goddess humane, reach then, and freely taste!  

Paradise Lost by William Blake, 1808

He ended; and his words, replete with guile, into her heart too easy entrance won: Fixed on the fruit she gazed, which to behold might tempt alone; and in her ears the sound yet rung of his persuasive words, impregned with reason, to her seeming, and with truth: Mean while the hour of noon drew on, and waked an eager appetite, raised by the smell so savoury of that fruit, which with desire inclinable now grown to touch or taste, solicited her longing eye; yet first pausing a while, thus to herself she mused: 

Great are thy virtues, doubtless, best of fruits, though kept from man, and worthy to be admired; Whose taste, too long forborn, at first assay gave elocution to the mute, and taught the tongue not made for speech to speak thy praise: Thy praise he also, who forbids thy use, conceals not from us, naming thee the tree of knowledge, knowledge both of good and evil; Forbids us then to taste! But his forbidding commends thee more, while it infers the good by thee communicated, and our want: For good unknown sure is not had; or, had and yet unknown, is not had at all. In plain then, what forbids he but to know, forbids us good, forbids us to be wise? Such prohibitions bind not. But, if death bind us with after-bands, what profits then our inward freedom? In the day we eat of this fair fruit our doom is we shall die! How dies the Serpent? He hath eaten and lives, and knows, and speaks, and reasons, and discerns, irrational till then. For us alone was death invented? Or to us denied this intellectual food, for beasts reserved? For beasts it seems: yet that one beast which first hath tasted envies not, but brings with joy the good befallen him, author unsuspect, friendly to man, far from deceit or guile. What fear I then? Rather, what know to fear under this ignorance of good and evil, of God or death, of law or penalty? Here grows the cure of all, this fruit divine, fair to the eye, inviting to the taste, of virtue to make wise: What hinders then to reach, and feed at once both the body and mind?  

So saying, her rash hand in evil hour forth reaching to the fruit, she plucked, she ate. Earth felt the wound; and Nature from her seat, sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe, that all was lost. Back to the thicket slunk the guilty Serpent. 

Points of difference

At the end of the last post I promised an explanation for a very different translation of Hebrews 9:16-18. But what I did not present in the previous post was a modern english translation with which to compare it. And so, in order to help facilitate a clear difference between the two translations, I will post my translation side by side with the ESV translation.

16  For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.  17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.  18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.  (ESV) 

****** 

16  For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the covenant-ratifier be brought forward. 17  For a covenant is confirmed upon dead bodies, otherwise it is not valid at all while the covenant-ratifier is alive.  18  Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. (My translation)

The differences ought to be apparent right away. The ESV assumes that the author has shifted away from his previous discussion in verse 15 about a "covenant" and is now interested in toying with a bit of word-play by introducing the concept of a "will" into the discussion before reverting back to the discussion of a "covenant" in verses 18 and 19. As I mentioned in previous posts (here and here), my translation assumes that the author has not shifted away from the discussion of a "covenant" at all, and is not talking about a "will" or "testament" at all either.

Also, based on the assumptions of the ESV translators, verses 16 and 17 are interpreted as though Jesus is the "one who made" this alleged "will", and therefore, in order for the "will" to go into effect, Jesus has to "establish" it by dying. But my translation does not speak about "establishing" (phero) the death of Jesus at all. Instead, my translation offers the more common and literal interpretation of the verb phero as meaning "to bear", "carry", or "bring forward" a thing. This is why my amplified translation in previous posts inserts the words "be carried." As David Allen has noted, the meaning of phero in Hebrews 9:16 "can be interpreted in three different senses: (1) in the sense of "offering" within a sacrificial context; (2) "to be represented," or (3) in the sense of "bringing something forward."1 After this, Allen notes carefully that the Greek word phero is never found extra biblically in relation to "will" or "testament."

Also, the clause in verse 16 which mentions "the one who made it" (ESV) is translated less literally than my version. The Greek is tou diathemenou, which uses the possessive definite article alongside a person who is literally "covenanting" or "ratifying a covenant". The same exact words in Greek are used in verse 17 (but with a different conjugation) where we find the ESV mentioning (again) "the one who made it" (ho diathemenos).  David Allen comments on the significance of this repetition:

That the articular participle ho diathemenos can be translated as "covenant-sacrifice" or "covenant-ratifier" rather than the "one who makes a will/covenant" would open the door for the meaning of a covenant being inaugurated by means of a sacrificial death.2

What we see then is that it's certainly plausible, if not probable, that the author was expressing a very common fact about priestly service and worship in the old covenant tabernacle, namely that the "death" of the "covenant-ratifier" must be "carried" or "brought forward" into the presence of God. Under the old covenant law, the worshiper brought animal sacrifices forward. And after the worshiper died representatively through means of animal sacrifices, those dead victims were then carried on behalf of the worshiper by a mediating priest into the very presence of God.

The next point of difference between translations is in verse 17, where we find the ESV talking about a "will" that only "takes effect" at "death". My own personal opinion is that this is a horrendously inaccurate translation of the original Greek text. First of all, there is no word for "only" in the Greek text. Therefore, to talk about something taking effect "only" under certain circumstances is to exaggerate the author's point. Secondarily, I don't believe the author is talking about a will again. He's talking about a "covenant." Thirdly, the text does not mention a time of "death" at all. The Greek is epi nekrois, which literally says "upon dead [bodies]". The word for "dead" here in Greek is plural in number. Again, Allen's comments are helpful:

The Greek phrase epi nekrois, "when somebody has died," is difficult to interpret. Literally the entire clause reads: "for a covenant/testament is confirmed upon dead [bodies]." The phrase epi nekrois should not be translated "at death" as is often the case since there is no evidence for this..."3

In conclusion, it is plausible, if not probable, that the author is describing a theological fact taught by the Law itself, namely that "a covenant is confirmed upon dead bodies." This is why he can follow that statement with further clarification about the worshiper failing to ratify the covenant in a valid manner if he does not confirm his own death upon dead animal victims slain and "carried" on his behalf. The worshiper cannot draw near to God without a sacrifice for his own sins, and if he does not offer what the laws of the priesthood prescribe, then he must present himself spotless before God (which is an impossibility). His covenant is not valid if he does not do what the Law prescribes and illustrates.

"Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood." What follows verse 18 is an example from Exodus 24:1-2, where Moses sprinkles the blood of a slaughtered animal on behalf of Israel at the very beginning of their inauguration into covenant with God as a priestly nation. Is it merely a coincidence that the author continues the connection between Israel as a nation of priests and God inaugurating his covenant with them?

1.  David L. Allen, New American Commentary: Hebrews [B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN; 2010], pp. 481

2.  Ibid., pp. 479. A few paragraphs after making this statement, Allen attempts to offer a neutral opinion concerning the the conflict that ensues among scholars, saying "It is questionable whether the author intended this much symbolism behind his words." He then says that those who insist upon identifying the human worshiper with "animal sacrifices which usually accompanied the inauguration of a covenant, may be straining the author's language...". 

3.  Ibid., pp. 481