Friday, June 28, 2024

Paulus Wyns on the Suffering Servant

  

The ”Suffering Servant”

 

Perhaps the strongest argument against reading Cyrus in Isaiah 45 is the “Suffering Servant” prophecy of Isaiah 53 that finds its original fulfilment in the life of Hezekiah. It is the New Testament hymn in Philippians that connects the motif of the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 with the Cyrus prophecy of Isaiah 45, by citing Isaiah 45:23; “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phillip. 2:10, 11). We might well ask who it was that functioned as a messianic prototype. Was it Cyrus the pagan king and idols worshipper, or Hezekiah the faithful descendant of David—the man who embodied the covenant promises and rose from his sickbed on the third day—the man who carried the burden of the nation that he attempted to reform—the man who was delivered at Passover (together with the nation)—the man whose birth was prophesied by Isaiah—the man whose name was Immanuel? Hezekiah was the mediator; the “Suffering Servant” who acted on behalf of the faithful remnant (Jacob who was also Yahweh’s servant . . . Israel whom I have chosen: 44:1) and who also acted as God’s agent (Immanuel—God with us—named by God 45:4 cf. 7:14) to the faithful remnant. Thus Hezekiah represented both parties—Yahweh to the people and the people to Yahweh. Thirtle comments: “The New Testament application of these great words is by no means called in question by the immediate (or initial) interpretation Holy Scripture—continually shows its distinctive vitality and inspiration in the fact that its distinctive vitality and inspiration in the fact that its statements are capable of application that are far-reaching beyond anything suggested by their primary purpose. All the same, it is important to observe the immediate reference, even in forms which are of the deepest significance when viewed in their relation to the larger unfolding of the Divine plan.” (Thirtle, OT Problems, 249) Who then functioned in an archetypical messianic role—Hezekiah or Cyrus? (Paulus Wyns, God is Judge: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Biblaridion Media, 2011], 142-43)

 

A. Andrew Das on the Supposed Hillel-Shammai Debate Concerning Divorce

  

The Supposed Hillel-Shammai Debate

 

The previous chapters examined how the Jewish Scriptures and the broader Second Temple Jewish milieu understood divorce and remarriage—a background essential to the application of the criterion of discontinuity, but what of the later rabbinic materials and their potential for this criterion? The late second-century CE Mishnaic tractate Giṭṭin discusses divorce documents and closes in 9:10 by discussing the grounds for divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1 posits “the same of a thing” (‘erwat dābār). The Mishnah claims that the house of Shammai had inverted the phrase to place the emphasis on the word “shame” (‘erwat). The wife who is to be divorced must have done something shameful. As Meir puts it: “Hence, the contrary to what is claimed in many treatments of the subject, the House of Shammai does not limit the grounds of divorce to adultery. Any action that would bring shame upon her husband qualifies as grounds for divorce.” (Meir, Law and Love, 93) This would, of course, include adultery. (10For other Shammaite grounds for divorce, see their interpretation of Exod 21:10-11 in m. Ketub 5:6) In contrast, the house of Hillel emphasized the word “thing” (dābār) of the phrase. In other words, any thing could be grounds for divorce. Rabbi Akiva therefore thought that finding a more beautiful woman could be grounds to divorce a wife. He justified his position with another phrase in Deut 24:1: “if she (the first wife) does not find favor [ḥēn].” The Hebrew word ḥēn used in Deut 24:1 can also be translated as “grace” or “beauty.” Reading it as such, the house of Hillel, much like Philo and Josephus, considered virtually anything a ground for divorce.

 

The gospels do not identify differences in the Pharisaic position; they question Jesus on his divorce teaching, and he responds to them as a group. Josephus adheres to a generous Hillel-like position on divorce with no suggestion that there were other views. Further, for the Pharisees to have convinced Jesus to agree with one or the other subgroup would not have demonstrated their point that he was taking a position opposed to Moses, as they attempt in their other confrontations with him. Finally, the Jewish divorce rate in Judea is thought to have been around 4 percent. (Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 371) In view of this low divorce rate, it would have been counterproductive for Hillelites arguing for a more generous divorce policy to get Jesus to agree with the more conservative Shammaites in order to discredit him. (William F. Luck, Sr., Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View, 2nd ed. [Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Pres, 2009], 152) That Jesus was being pressed by the Hillel position to side with the Shammai position does not seem obvious.

 

John Meier faults New Testament interpreters for not realizing that m. Giṭṭin is the first attestation in Jewish literature of a dispute over the proper grounds for divorce. “As far as datable documents are concerned, this is something startingly new in Judaism. “(Meier, Law and Love, 95). Josephus, Philo, and Deuteronomy all presume the near-absolute rite for a husband to divorce his wife. (Instone-Brewer [“Jewish Greek and Aramaic Marriage,” 235] mistakenly describes Hillel’s “new ruling” as effectively giving men the same generous divorce rights as in Greek Law. There is no evidence that Jewish men ever were lacking those rights) CD IV, 19-V< 9 condemns polygyny and likely also remarriage after divorce. Apart from Jesus, pre-70 CE Judaism provides no extant of a discussion concerning the sufficient grounds for a divorce. As Meier writes:

 

Therefore, despite the almost universal tendency on the part of NT exegetes to explain Jesus’ prohibition of divorce against the “background” of the debate between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, this tendency may actually be a prime example of the anachronistic use of later texts to explain earlier ones. That is, a text written down for the first time at the beginning of the 3d century A.D. (the Mishna) is called upon to elucidate a teaching of Jesus reaching back to the early part of the 1st century A.D., with written attestation in the 50s by Paul and ca. 70 by Mark. Considering the dearth of any clear attestation of the dispute over the grounds of divorce between the Houses in the pre-70 period, we would do well, at least initially, to explain Jesus’ teaching on divorce solely in light of what is truly prior to and contemporary with the Palestinian Judaism of the 1st century A.D. (Meier, Law and Love, 95)

 

Meier thus pleads for an interpretation of early Christianity in the light of contemporaneous or earlier documents, especially since those documents do not offer any hint of the debate in the later Mishnaic texts. Meier’s plea accords with Jacob Neusner’s groundbreaking body of work: What cannot be demonstrated prior to 70 CE should not simply be assumed on the basis of later rabbinic sources. (A. Andrew Das, Remarriage in Early Christianity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], 79-81)

 

Paulus Wyns (Christadelphian), "Resolving the Cyrus Problem in Isaiah"

The following comes from Paulus Wyns, God is Judge: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Biblaridion Media, 2011), 125-30; he is basing his comments on James William Thirtle, Old Testament Problems: Critical Studies in the Psalms and Isaiah (London: Morgan & Scott, 1916) ( cf. Margaret Barker, "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song” [2000]):

 

 

Resolving the Cyrus Problem in Isaiah

 

To suggest that Thirtle simply posits that the name “Cyrus” should be treated as an appellative does not do justice to his proposal. He presents a methodically researched position that demonstrates intertextual correspondence between Isaiah 44-45 with earlier ‘Hezekiah’ prophecies; moreoever, he provides the political motivation behind the change and offers a plausible philology for the transformation. Firstly, Thirtle observes the unusual format of the prophecy—Cyrus is spoken to in the present tense: “The passage is not in the form of a prediction: it presents the king as being addressed, as one then living and present to the prophet, just as plainly as ‘Jacob my servant’ is employed with reference to the chosen people . . .(Thirtle, OT Problems, 245) To understand this as prophetic prolepsis will simply not do—God (Isaiah) is speaking to ‘His anointed’, not to someone who is still 150-200 years in the future. Thirtle also points out the parallelism between 44 and 45:

 

Isaiah 44

Isaiah 45:1

11. the workmen חרשׁ (ch-r-sh) . . . shall be ashamed together

Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus כרשׁ (k-r-sh) . . . [27]

20. Is there not a lie in my right hand?

Whose right hand I have held חזק (ch-z-q)

 

Thirtle remarks that, “There is cohesion and cogency in the prophecy as a whole, as compromising the two chapters. There is, however, not allusion, but contrast as well. The ‘workman’ who makes idols has ‘a liar in his right hand’ (44.20); the one whom the Lord addressed through the prophet is subject to another influence—the Lord ‘holds his right hand’ (45.1). (Thirtle, OT Problems, 253) The contrast is between the workmen [29] who are ashamed because their right hand trusts in a lie (idol) and the Lord’s anointed whose right hand is strengthened by Yahweh. The Hebrew for held or strengthened in Isa. 45:1 is a paronomasia on Hezekiah. [30] Thirtle remarks on the absurdity of such language being applied to a heathen king, particularly after Isaiah’s diatribe against idolaters: Cyrus claimed to be a successor of the Babylonian kings, and acknowledged the supremacy of Marduk, the Babylonian god, whose hand Cyrus held at the New Year ceremony. The correspondences noted by Thirtle that demonstrate continuity with earlier Hezekiah material are best illustrated in tabular form:

 

Isaiah 45:1

Hezekiah

His anointed

Hezekiah the anointed king

Whose right hand I have held (חזק)

Hezekiah (חזקיה)

. . . that thou mayest know that I, the LORD< which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. (vv. 3b, 4)

Hezekiah—a prototype of the Messiah—named Immanuel before he was even born (though thou hast not known me) He was the Prince of peace and the Wonderful Counsellor (Isa. 9:6, 7) the branch out of the root of Jesse (Isa. 11:1-5)

. . . they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God. (v. 14)

Immanuel (God with us)

 

Yahweh will “open the double doors” for the anointed, “so that the gates will not be shut” . . .and will “break in pieces the gates of bronze and cut the bars of iron.” (Isa. 45:1b, 2b). The phrase occurs only in Psalm 107, a Psalm that is intertextually linked with First Isaiah (1-39) and with Deutro-Isaiah (40-55) because the Sitz im Leben is the right of Hezekiah :[31]

 

Isaiah 38

Psalm 107

10. In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol

18. Their soul abhorred all manner of good, and they drew near to the gates of death.

2. Hezekiah prayed unto the Lord
3. And Hezekiah wept bitterly

13. Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble . . .

4-5. And the word of the LORD came to Isaiah, saying, Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will add to your days fifteen years’.

20. He sent His word and healed them, And delivered them from their destructions.

17. . . . You have lovingly delivered my soul from the pit of corruption, For You have cast all my sins behind Your back.

16. For He has broken the gates of bronze, and cut the bars of iron in two.

20. The LORD was ready to save me; Therefore we will sing my songs with stringed instruments All the days of our life, in the house of the LORD.

15. Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness, And for His wonderful works to the children of men!

 

The individual suffering of Hezekiah has a collective dimension (They cried out . . . Ps. 107:10) as the king (the Suffering Servant) lay on his deathbed the faithful remnant in the city fasted (Their soul abhorred all manner of good and they drew near to the gates of death. Ps. 107:18); God heard the nation’s distress caused by the Assyrian siege which coincidentally (sic) coincided with the mortal illness of their king. The “breaking in pieces of the gates of bronze and the cutting of the bars of iron” is a metaphor for the bonds of death. Hezekiah is resurrected from his death bed and is called into the presence of the high priest “call my servant to Eliakim the son of Hilkiah” [32] were he is clothed with priestly garments and receives a prophetic pronouncement about his descendant, the Messiah, who will possess the “key of the house of David” [33] and is able to open the doors of death and “none shall shut” (Isa. 22:22; cf. Rev. 3:7). Peripeteia is the motif of the chapter—a sudden reversal of fortunes. Shebna had been planning to replace the Davidic dynasty and had used the illness of Hezekiah and his childlessness as an opportunity to curry favor with the Assyrians. Shebna had established himself as a “nail in a sure place” but his nail would be removed in that day (Isa. 22:25) and replaced with Hezekiah’s nail. Shebna built himself an ornate tomb amongst the kings of Judah (1 Kings 2:10; 2 Chr. 32:33) betraying his dynastic aspirations. Instead Shebna would suffer an ignominious death and Hezekiah who was at death’s door (with him died the Davidic dynasty) would be raised. In that day, one “nail” would be hammed home and another “nail” would be removed—a complete reversal of fortunes. These prophecies have nothing to do with Cyrus and the “gates” that Yahweh will break open have nothing to do with the gates of Babylon; “. .  on this rock [34] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

 

Here are the more lengthier footnotes from the above (others have been embedded into the main text):

 

[27] The change from חרשׁ to כרשׁ is a simple re-vocalization. With the addition of vowels and pointing the later Masorites rendered Cyrus as כּוֹרֶשׁ (kôrêsh).

 

[29] Thirtle (OT Problems, 254 fn.) notes the other places in this part of Isaiah in which חרשׁ occurs in connection with the making of idols—ch. 40.19,20 (‘workman’); 41.7 (‘carpenter’). See also 44.11 (‘workmen’). He remarks that: “This same word has also been impressed into significant service by translators of the New Testament into Hebrew (including Franz Delitzsch and Isaac Salkinson), by being made to stand for τεκτων in Mark 6.3—‘Is not this the Carpenter?’ (See also Matt. 13.55)

 

[30] Strengthened or held: חזק is the root for Hezekiah: חזקיה, “Strengthened of Yah”. The literary device of paromoeosis and paronomasia is typical of the Hebrew writings.

 

[31] For inter-textual links between Psalm 107/Isaiah and Psalm 107/Job, see G. Booker, Psalm Studies (Austin, Texas: Booker Publications, 1988)

 

[32] Harry Whittaker (Isaiah, 249) notes the similarity between the Hebrew phrasing in Isaiah 22:20; ‎wəqārāʾṯî ləʿaḇdî ləʾelyāqîm ben-ḥilqiyyāhû (call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah) and 1 Kings 1:32 (‎qirʾû-lî ləṣādôq), where the prepositional prefix l’ is also repeated; “call to me Zadok the priest.” Whittaker proposes that Isaiah 22:20 should be understood in the same manner: “call my servant to Eliakim the son of Hilkiah.”

 

[33] This is royal language not priestly terminology, moreover the phrases in Isaiah 22:21-23 are inter-textually linked with the Messianic Emmanuelle (God with us) prophecy in 7:14 and 9:6-7 “government”/”father” etc regarding the throne of David. Hezekiah acts as a proto-type of the Messiah and in Isa 22 he is clad in priestly garments and functions as a priest-king (Melchizedek) like his ancestor David.

 

[34] The rock is a reference to Peter’s Messianic statement (You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.) and not to Peter himself (a small stone or pebble) and is therefore not a pronouncement on Apostolic succession. Shebna built a “habitation for himself in a rock” (Isa 22:16) but unlike Peter, Shebna refused to accept Yahweh’s anointed as his rock.

Thursday, June 27, 2024

Paulus Wyns (Christadelphian) on the "sons of God" in Job 1-2 being members of the divine court

In his commentary on the book of Daniel, Paulus Wyns argues that the "sons of God" in Daniel and Job 1-2 are members of the heavenly court; that may be mundane, but  author is a Christadelphian, and that is a minority interpretation in the community (due to their rejection of a supernatural Satan, they often tend to interpret "sons of God" in Job 1-2 as members of the believing community or some other 'mortal' interpretation):

 

Four in the Fire

 

The three companions were cast into the furnace when to Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment they were joined by a fourth figure “like the Son of God”:

 

“Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the from of the fourth is like the Son of God.” (Dan. 3:25)

 

The “Son of God” (NKJ) is translated more precisely as “a son of the gods” (RSV/NIB/JPS/YLT), this figure is equated with an Angel in the doxology of Dan 3:28 (God . . . sent His Angel) and is a member of the divine council (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1), perhaps this is the Angel of the presence known as the Holy one of Israel; . . . (Paulus Wyns, God is Judge: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Biblaridion Media, 2011], 84)

 

Paulus Wyns on possible typological links between the building of the Wall in Nehemiah 6 and the Crucifixion

 . . . the Gospel writers, particularly Matthew, understood the building of the “wall” by Nehemiah as typifying the crucifixion, as demonstrated in the following table:

 

Nehemiah

Christ

“At that time I had not set up the doors of the gates” (6:1)

Possess the gates of his enemies, hell and death (Rev. 1:18; Gen. 22:17)

Asked four times to come down off the wall . . . “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down” (6:3).

Asked four times to come down off the cross (Mtt. 27:41-43).

Accused of wanting to be king of the Jews (6:6).

Crucified as king of the Jews (Mtt. 27:37).

“Their hands shall be weakened from the work, that it be not done. Now, therefore, O God, strengthen my hands” (6:9).

His hands strengthened for the cross.
“And there appeared an angel from heaven strengthening him” (Lk. 22:43—Gethsemane).

“And I said, should such a man as I flee? And who is there, that being as I am, would go into the Temple to save his life? I will not go in” (6:11).

“Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Mtt. 26:53, 54).

“For they perceived that this work was wrought of our God” (6:16).

“Truly this was the Son of God” (Mtt. 27:54).

 

Source: Paulus Wyns, God is Judge: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Biblaridion Media, 2011), 280

The descensus ad inferos in the Council of Toledo (AD 625) and the Council of Rome (AD 745)

In Robert Sungenis’s book, Not By Faith Alone, we read the following in a footnote:

 

The Church also holds as dogma that the souls of most Old Testament saints were released from “Sheol” (Hebrew: שׁאול) or “Hades” (Greek: αδης) when Christ visited this realm immediately after his death, in accord with the statement in the Apostles Creed “he descended into hell.” The descent into Sheol or Hades corresponds to other Scriptures which refer to the conscious abode of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous, before the resurrection of Christ, e.g., “he went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1Pt 3:19); “the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead” (1Pt 4:6); “the heart of the earth” (Mt 12:40); “Abraham’s bosom” (Lk 16:22-26); “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God...and live” (Jn 5:25); “the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life” (Mt 27:52-53); “he also descended to the lower, earthly regions” (Ep 4:9); “you and your sons will be with me” (1Sm 28:19); “consign to the earth below...with those who go down to the pit” (Ez 32:18ff); “he leads down to Hades” (Tb 13:2); “the dominion of Hades” (Ws 1:14; 2:1; 16:13). These interpretations were upheld at the Council of Rome (745 AD; Denz. 587); the Council of Toledo (625 AD; Denz. 485). See Catholic Catechism, ¶¶631-635. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 64 n. 90)

 

For those curious as to the Councils of Toledo and Rome, here are the relevant entries from Denzinger (I know Latter-day Saints are always interested in discussions of the descent of Christ into hades):

 

HONORIUS I: October 27, 625-October 12, 638

 

485-486: Synod of TOLEDO, begun December 5, 633

 

. . .

 

Trinitarian and Christological Creed

 

(Chap. 1) In conformity with the Sacred Scriptures and the teaching that we have received from the holy Fathers, we confess that the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit <are> of one unique divinity and substance; believing the Trinity in a diversity of Persons and proclaiming unity in the divinity, we neither confuse the Persons nor separate the substance. We say that the Father <was> neither made nor generated by anyone; we affirm that the Son <was> not made by the Father but generated; we truly profess that the Holy Spirit <was> neither created nor generated but proceeds form the Father and the Son. However, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, Son of God and creator of all things, was generated before all ages from the substance of the father, and in the latter times, for the redemption of the world, he descended from the Father, he who never creased being with the Father; he truly became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the glorious holy Mother of God, and he alone was born from her. The same Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, receiving the complete soul and flesh of man but without sin, remains what he was and assumes what he was not: equal to the father in regard to divinity, less than the father in regard to humanity, having in one Person the properties of the two natures; for in him <are> two natures, God and man, not, however, two sons and two gods, but the same Person in both natures; he underwent his Passion and death for our salvation, not in the power of divinity, but in the weakness of humanity; he descended into hell to free the holy ones being held there, and, after having conquered the rule and domination of death, he rose again, ascended then into heaven, and, in the future, he will come to judge the living and the dead. Cleansed by his death and blood, we have attained remission of sins in order to be resurrected by him in the last days in that flesh in which we now live and likewise in the form in which the Lord was resurrected: some receiving eternal life from him for merits of justice; others, the sentence of eternal punishment because of their sins.

 

This is the faith of the Catholic Church. This is the profession of faith we conserve and hold; and whoever will guard it with great firmness will have eternal salvation. (Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash [43rd ed; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012], 166-67)

 

587: Synod of ROME, Session 3, October 25, 745

 

. . .

 

Descent of Christ into Hell

 

587 . . . Clement, who by his stupidity rejects the decisions of the holy Fathers and all the synodal acts and who introduces Judaism even for Christians when he preaches that it is licit to assume the wife of a dead brother and who, moreover, preached that the Lord Jesus Christ, in descending into hell, delivered from there all the pious and the impious, is stripped of all priestly function and bound by the chain of anathema. (Ibid., 204)

 

 

Use of Temple Language in Adolf Haag (1865-1892) to Louis Abegg on August 14, 1892


This practical school of this mission gives me enough opportunity to enrich my experiences. And it is, as with all other things or with life itself, “Our Life is what we make it.” One who lives in indifference and fulfills his duties only halfway can never harvest the priceless blessing of a faithfully fulfilled mission, can never enjoy the true happiness of serving God nor in the complete sense cleanse his garments of the blood of this generation. (Adolf Haag, Letter to Louis Abegg, August 14, 1892, in A missionary’s Story: The Letters and Journals of Adolf Haag Mormon Missionary to Switzerland and Palestine, 1892, ed. Larry W. Draper and Kent P. Jackson [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015], 215)

 

Blog Archive