Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Some Notes on Jonah 3:10

Jonah 3:10 in the KJV reads:

 

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

 

Joseph changed this text, as was his habit, to remove reference to God “repenting,” but God changing his mind is still in view. On p. 118 of OT manuscript 2, we read:

 


 

 

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way and repented; and God turned away the evil that he had said he would bring upon them.

 

In a recent scholarly translation of the book of commentary, we read the following about this passage:

 

This verse once again employs the root נחם, indicating that God does indeed relent or think better about the punishing destruction that he had commanded Jonah to declare against Nineveh. Here one can compare Exod 32:14, which shares with Jonah 3:10 formulaic language involving quite precise repetition of the same words; in the Exodus text, after hearing Moses’s remonstrations, God relents from the punishment he had planned in response to the incident of the golden calf. The two examples evidence slight variations: in Exodus, the deity is called יהוה, the divine name, whereas in Jonah the deity is אלהים, God. In addition, Jonah 3:10 lengthens the relenting act with the phrase ולא עשׂה, “and he did not do it.” In Exodus, the change of heart is a response to Moses’s intervention, his reminder that God has a reputation to uphold among the Egyptians and a promise to keep to Israel. Another example of the same conventionalized language describing divine relenting in regard to punishment is found in Jer 18:8 (to be contrasted with the variant in Jer 18:10 declaring that the deity may change his mind in regard to positive or salutary plans).

 

God leads the prophet Jeremiah to a potter whose clay pots are shown to be malleable; the spoiled pot can be reshaped and made good. In the same way, human nations can be transformed, can indeed transform themselves, allowing the deity to relent. In Jer 18:8, נחם is employed in first-person speech by God, and the phrase “that he had spoken/declared to do to them” uses the variant, “I thought to do to it,” חשׁבתי לעשׂות לו. Jeremiah 18:8 is especially pertinent to the tale of Jonah and Nineveh, as both authors grapple with questions about the disposition of nations. While Jeremiah applies this case to Judah, the referent in 18:7–10 potentially has more universal applicability, as the rabbis will notice in their reception of Jonah 3:10 and their midrashic juxtaposition of these two texts. (Susan Niditch, Jonah: A Commentary [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2023], 97)

 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Ex-Mormon Atheist Showing they are totally well adjusted, law abiding citizens

I just got this random message out of the blue (never interacted with this fellow before, so I honestly have no idea where this came from):







BTW, to see what type of scum bag he is, click here--dude has been arrested for domestic abuse in front of a kid multiple times. Thanks for the opportunity at letting me reveal to the whole world your true character, Derrek. I might just contact The Dive Shop as they have some stories to tell, I am sure, including why they let you go.


And here is a message both myself and Travis (not Tim as Mr. Domestic Abuser called him) received:



No doubt fans of low IQ podcasts like Mormonish.

Peter Bekins’s Translation of Ketef Hinnom Amulet 1

  

 

Translation:

 

1 [    ] Yahw[eh 2     3 the g]rea[t who keeps] 4 the covenant and 5 [the] loyalty toward those who lo[ve 6 him] and keep [his commandments]

7 [     ] 8 the eternal [    9 the] blessing from ever [sn]are 10 and from evil 11 because redemption 12 is in him, for Yahweh 13 is our [re]storer [and] a rock.

(14) May Yahweh 15 bless (you), [and 16 may he] keep you; [may] 17 Yahweh cause 18 his face to sh[ine upon you]. (Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwest Semitic [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2020], 134)

 

 

   

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Peter Bekins's Translation of Kuntillet Ajrud Pithos A & B (9th century BC)

  

Kuntillet Ajrud Pithos A (9th century BC):

 

1 אמר א[שין] המ[ל]ך אמר ליהל[לאל] וליועשה ו[     ] ברכת אתכם

2 ליהוה שמרן לאשרתה (Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwest Semitic [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2020], 95)

 

Translation

 

1 Ashyah, the king swys:

(1) “Say to Yahallelel and to Yawasah and [

(1) ‘I thereby bless you 2 by Yahweh-of-Samaria and by his Asherah.’” (Ibid., 96)

 

 

Kuntillet Ajrud Pithos B (9th century BC):

 

1 [א]מר

2 אמריו א

3 מר ל אדנ[י]

4 השלם א[ת]

5 ברכתך לי

6 הוה תמן

7 ולזשריה יב

8 רך וישמרך

9 ויהי עם אד[נ]

10 י (Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwest Semitic [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2020], 97)

 

 

Translation

 

1 Amaryah 2 [sa]ys:

(2) “Say 3 to [my] lord, 4 ‘Are y[ou] well?

5 I bless you by Yahweh 6 of Toman 7 and by his Asherah.

(7) My he bless 8 you, and may he keep you, and 9 may he be with my 10 lo[rd].’” (Ibid., 98)

 

   

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Peter Bekins’s Translation of the Mesha Inscription/Stele (ca. 840 BC)

  

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh[yat], king of Moab, the 2 Dibonite.

(2) My father ruled over Moab thirty years, and I ruled 3 after my father.

(3) I made this high place for Kemsh in Qarhoh.

(3) (It is) a high place of 4 salvation because he saved me from all the kings because he made me prevail over all my enemies.

(4) Now Omri 5 (was) king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab many days because Kemosh was angry with his land.

6 His son took his place, and he also said, “I will oppress Moab.”

(6) In my days he said th[is], but I prevailed over him and his house. Israel has indeed perished forever.

(7) Omri took possession of the 8 l[an]d of Medaba.

(8) He settled in it during his days and half the days of his son, forty years. But 9 Kemosh returned it in my days.

(8) Then I built Baal-Meon, and I made the cistern within it. Then I bui[lt] 10 Qiryaten.

(10) Now the people of Gad had settled in the land of Ataroth for a long time, but the king 11 of Israel rebuilt Ataroth for himself.

(11) I fought against the city, and I seized it. I killed all of the peo[ple] 12 (because) the city had been (dedicated) to Kemosh and to Moba.

(12) I took captive from there the ‘R’L DWDH and I 13 [dra]gged it before Kemosh at Qiryoth.

(13) I settled in it the people of Sharon and the peo[ple] of Maharat.

(14) Then Kemosh said to me, “Go! Take Nebo from Israel!”

(14) So I 15 went in the night, and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, and I 16 took it.

(16) I killed all of them, seven thousand—men and foreign men, women and 17 [for]eign women, and maidens—because I had dedicated it to Ashtar-Kemosh.

(17) I took from there the 18 [ves]sels of Yahweh, and I dragged from them before Kemosh.

(18) Now the king of Israel had built 19 Yahaz, and he lived in it while he was fighting against me, but Kemosh drove him out before me.

(19) Then 20 I took from Moab two hundred men, its entire (elite) division. I brought them against Yahaz, and I took it 21 to add (it) on to Dibon.

(21) I built Qarhoh, namely, the wall of the forest and the wall of the 22 acropolis.

(22) I built its gates, and I built its towers. I 23 built the royal palace.

(23) I made the wall of the reserve[oir for a spr]ng with[in] 24 the city.

(24) There was no cistern within the city, in Qarhoh, so I said to all the people, “Each one make 25 for yourselves a cistern at his house.”

(25) I dug the water channels for Qarhoh with captives 26 from Israel.

(26) I built Aroer. I made the highway at Arnon.

27 I rebuilt Bet-Bamoth because it was destroyed.

(27) I rebuilt Bezer, because it was ruins, 28 with the companies of Dibon, because all Dibob were subjects.

(28) I rul[d 29 over the] hundreds in the cities that I added onto the land.

(29) I built 30 [also Med]aba and Bet-Diblaten and Bet-Baal-Meon.

(30) Then I brought there my sh[epherds 31 to tend the] flocks of the land.

(31) Now, as for Horonen—the House of [Da]vid had dwelled in it [   ]

32 (and) Kemosh said to me, “Go down, make war on Horonen.”

(32) So I went down and [I fought 33 against the city and I seized it.] Kemosh [retored] it in my days.

(33) and ‘L[ ] DH from there ‘š[  

(34) And I [] . . . (Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwest Semitic [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2020], 160-61)

 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Instances of the Name Malkiyahu in the Arad Ostracon (cf. Jeremiah 38:6)

  

Arad Ostracon 40 (end of the 8th century BC):

 

1 בנכם כמר[יהו] ונח

2 מיהו שלח[ו לשלם]

3 מלכיהו ברכת[ך ליהו]ה

. . .

(Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwest Semitic [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2020], 103)

 

מלכיהו > malkyahū (PN) ‘Yahweh-ks-king’ < malk (N → מלך) + yahū (DN). See BH מַלְכִּיָּהוּ (Jer 36:8). Note that the BH form malkīyↄhū includes an epenthetic I at the morpheme boundary, which is frequent in biblical names and should be not be interpreted as a bound 1CS pronoun. (Ibid., 104)

 

Translation

 

1 Your son Gemar[yahu], and Nehemyhau, 2 send [concerning the welfare of] 3 Malkiyahu. I bless [you by Yahw]eh. (Ibid., 106)

 

 

Arad Ostracon 24 (early 6th century BC):

 

12 מערד 50 ומקינ[ה   ]

13 ה ושלחתם אתם רמת נג[ב בי]

14 ד מלכיהו בן קרבאור והב (Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwest Semitic [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2020], 116)

 

Translation

 

. . .

 

12 (take) from Arad 50 (men) from Qina[h   ]

13 And send them to Ramath-negev in the charge 14 of Malkiyahu son of Qarabor. (Ibid., 118)

 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

John A. Tvedtnes (1971) on Genesis 1:1-3

 

 

 1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖יתa בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

2 וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֨הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

3 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃

 

"1. In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, 2. the earth being waste and uninhabited and darkness being upon the face of the deep and a wind from God blowing on the face of the waters. 3. then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

 

This translation, which is a departure from the traditional rendering, is, nevertheless, one that has gained wide acceptance by modern Hebrew scholars, both Jewish and Christian. Verse 2 must be understood to be a parenthetical addition to the main thought (see below), which is given in the conjoined sentences in verses 1 and 3. The three major sentences, therefore, are represented by the three verse divisions . . .

 

/bərēʾšîta (6) bārāʾ (8) ʾĕlōhîm (2) ʾēt (9) haššāmayim (6) wəʾēt (9) hāʾāreṣ (1) wəhāʾāreṣ (4) hoytâ (9) tōhû (5) wābōhû (3) wəḥōšek (6) ʿal (10) pənê (7) təhōwm (2) wərûaḥ (8) ʾĕlōhîm (4) məraḥepet (6) ʿal (10) pənê (9) hammāyim (1) wayyōʾmer (9) ʾĕlōhîm (6) yəhî (8)ʾōwr (2) wayəhî (10)ʾōwr (1)/

 

1. /bārāʾ ʾĕlōhîm ʾēt haššāmayim wəʾēt hāʾāreṣ/ 'God created the heavens and the earth.'

 

2. /wəhāʾāreṣ hoytâ tōhû wābōhû wəḥōšek ʿal-pənê təhōwm wərûaḥ ʾĕlōhîm məraḥepet ʿal-pənê hammāyim/ 'The earth was waste and uninhabited and darkness was on the face of the deep and a wind from God was blowing on the face of the waters.

 

3. /wayyōʾmer ʾĕlōhîm yəhî ʾōwr wayəhî-ʾōwr/ 'Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

 

In verse 1, we have eliminated the "in the beginning," which serves to link verse 1 with verse 3, and hence is not a part of the sentence itself. Verse 2, as many have pointed out, has the wrong word-order (the subject coming before this verb) if it is to be considered as an independent Hebrew sentence; it is therefore parenthetical, being embedded into the larger sentence which ends at verse 3.

 

Turning now to sentence 1, we note that, as expected, our first division is the separation of the subject, "God," from the rest of the sentence (the predicate), for it has an accent ranked "2" on our scale. The next division is between "the heavens" and "the earth," (each of these is preceded by the accusative particle or object marker) showing that these are predicates belonging to two conjoined sentences, which originally read:

 

1a. "God created the heavens."

1b. "God created the earth."

 

We tend to agree with this analysis, made by the Masoretes.

 

Sentence 2 (the embedded sentence showing the state or condition of the earth at the time that God, when he was creating it, said "Let there be light"), according to its first accent (2), should be divided initially into two sentences:

 

2a. "The earth was waste and uninhabited and darkness (was) on the face of the deep."

2b. "A wind (from) God (was) blowing on the face of the waters."

 

The first of these (2a) may be further subdivided (accent 3), as follows:

 

2a-1. "The earth was waste and uninhabited."

2a-2. "Darkness (was) on the face of the deep."

 

In 2a-1, we have the separation of the subject from the predicate by accent (4). The next subdivision, rather than separating the verb from the "predicate adjectives," splits the latter into two parts, again evidencing that there is, here, a conjoining of sentences where all but these two elements are identical:

 

"The earth was waste" plus "The earth was uninhabited."

 

In 2a-2, the first division again separates the subject from the predicate (accent 6). The next division gives two elements, "on the face" and "deep," which is evidence of two underlying elements, "on the face" and "the face is of the deep," of which, as we have seen before, one of the identical-noun phrases must be obligatorily deleted in the final sentence structure.

 

In sentence 2b, the first division (4) separates the subject ("a wind (from) God") from the predicate ("blowing on the face of the waters"). Accent (6) separates the particle (verbal adjective) from the adverbial, as expected. And, as in the construct state elsewhere, the next division is not between the preposition ("On") and the construction, but, rather, between the construct ("face") and its genitive ("the waters"), showing that the underlying meaning is "on the face" and "the face is of the waters."

 

Verse 3 also contains two sentences:

 

3a. "Then God said, 'Let there be light.'"

3b. "There was light."

 

The division between these two is shown by the accent (2). The second sentence (3b), consisting of but two words, is easily divided.

 

Its predecessor (3a), however, must be subdivided into "Then God said" and "Let there be light," which the latter sentence serving as direct object of the sentence into which it is embedded.

 

The more modern translation of Genesis 1:1-3 is thus confirmed by an examination of the accents affixed to its various elements by the Masoretes, whose knowledge of deep structure can hardly be doubted in the light of this information. (John A. Tvedtnes, "The Medieval Hebrew Grammarians in the Light of Modern Linguistics" [MA Thesis; University of Utah, June 1971], 114-19; note, I have used the SBL Academic method of transliteration of Hebrew in the above)

 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

William M. Schniedewind on Amos 7:14

  

I just cannot take Amos seriously. Amos claims, “I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet” (7:14). Oh really? That seems like a pretty disingenuous claim given that his book is included in the biblical canon of the “Prophets.” What did he mean by such a disclaimer? One thing we can learn from this is that there was something about Amos’ understanding of the title Prophet that he did not want to be associated with. And the Book of Amos respects Amos’ objection inasmuch as it never calls him a naḇîʾ, that is, the biblical Hebrew word for “prophet.” Amos also objects to the institutionalization of prophets in his rejection of the title “Son of a Prophet.” In rejecting the moniker and the description as a son of a prophet, Amos both acknowledges and rejects prophetic apprenticeship. Amos does not conceive of the prophet as a solitary figure called by God to speak for God; rather, he sees the prophet as an institutional position that can be learned through apprenticeship. Amos’ objections will make more sense in this chapter as we look at the title Prophet in biblical literature and ancient Hebrew inscriptions.

 

Amos’ rejection of prophetic titles is related to the context of his pronouncements. The story is set at the royal shrine of Bethel, in the northern kingdom, with Amos criticizing its leadership. The local priest, Amaziah, tells Amos to leave and go to Judah but not to “prophesy at Bethel, for it is a royal sanctuary and a royal house” (Amos 7:13). The town of Bethel was one of the towns where the first king of the northern kingdom, Jeroboam I (r. 931–910 BCE), set up a rival temple to Jerusalem (see 1 Kgs 12:25–33). One story in the Book of Kings even mentions “the sons of the prophets that were in Bethel” (2 Kgs 2:3). Amos seems to be distancing himself from them and their royal patron. He equates them with state-sponsored religious and political power, and he sees himself as independent—something he does not equate with the title “Prophet.” Amos treats the titles Prophet and Son of a Prophet as something associated with official political and religious power. He wants none of that.

 

As I discussed in chapter 1, the Hebrew term ben or “son” can be used in the familial relationships created by apprenticeship. The relationship does not have to be biological kinship, but it can be a fictive kinship created by apprenticeship. Amos seems to be thinking of just such a community in his rejection of the label Son of a Prophet. (William M. Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible: The Story of the Scribes [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2024], 111-12; see the entire chapter [pp. 111-34] for a fuller discussion)

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Thomas R. Schreiner on 2 Peter 2:1

Although he (lamely) tries to defend Reformed theology, Thomas Schreiner does a good job at discussing 2 Pet 2:1 (if one can sift the Calvinistic nonsense causing him to speak from both sides of his mouth]):

 

The root problem with these false teachers is conveyed in the phrase “even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” The NIV captures precisely the meaning of kai by translating it “even.” The Greek word despotēs is not the usual one for “Lord,” and again the NIV’s rendering is felicitous (“sovereign Lord”). The word designates earthly masters of slaves in several texts (1 Tim 6:1–2; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), or it emphasizes God’s lordship (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; Jude 4; Rev 6:10; cf. Gen 15:2, 8; Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:33). This verse may be the only text in the New Testament where the term refers to Jesus Christ, though Jude 4 may be another instance. A reference to Jesus Christ is likely in the phrase he “bought them” (cf. Rev 5:9). The verb for “bought” (agorazō) is part of the redemption word group in the New Testament. Jesus as Lord bought them as his slaves, and he purchased them through his atoning death on the cross. Peter would not speak of the false teachers as bought by the death of the Lord if they were pagan outsiders. The expression indicates that the false teachers were part of the church Peter addressed, that they professed faith in Jesus Christ. At one time they were loyal servants of Jesus Christ, but now they denied the Lord who spilled his blood for them.

 

The language of denial alludes to Jesus’ words, “Whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matt 10:33, NRSV). Those who deny Jesus will experience eschatological judgment when he denies them forever before his Father. From the remainder of 2 Peter it is evident that the denial of Jesus’ lordship was practical, in that they rejected his moral authority over their lives. It is harder to discern whether specific Christological errors were part of the denial. Probably the denial of the second coming of Christ should be included here, for in doing so they in effect rejected his lordship (cf. 2 Pet 3:4–7). Those who introduce false teaching and deny the Lord Jesus Christ will bring “swift destruction on themselves.” Peter used the same word for “destruction” (apōleia) that was appended to the word “heresies” in this verse. The word is a common one in the New Testament for the eschatological punishment to come. We already noted that those who deny Jesus will be denied before the Father. Peter clarified here that the false teachers were not guilty of minor defections but that judgment awaited them if they did not repent. The word “swift” (tachinēn) could also be translated “sudden.” We do not need to choose between these ideas. The judgment will be sudden, and it will be soon. Bauckham rightly remarks that Peter did not repudiate an imminent eschatology, even though he refused to calculate when the end would arrive.16

 

In the history of theology two issues have arisen in the interpretation of this verse, and they are related. Was Peter teaching that believers can commit apostasy and lose their salvation? Furthermore, did he teach what is called “unlimited atonement,” that is, the idea that Christ died for all people, but only those who believe in Christ receive the benefit of the atonement that was offered to all? We should reject the interpretation defended by J. Owen, for he argued that the “buying” done by Christ was nonsoteriological in this text, so that Peter did not even have spiritual salvation in mind. The problem with this view is that the New Testament nowhere else uses the word for redemption in association with Christ in a nonsoteriological sense (cf. 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; 1 Pet 1:18–19; Rev 5:9; 14:3–4). The interpretation suffers from special pleading since redemption is invariably soteriological.

 

We should note that many scholars who defend “unlimited atonement” also think that believers cannot lose their salvation. But a problem also arises for their interpretation. The verse seems to say that eschatological judgment will be the destiny of those who were bought by the Lord, who were members of the church, who, apparently, acknowledged Jesus Christ at some point as their Lord and Savior. The verse does not refer to people in general who are the potential beneficiaries of Christ’s death. It speaks of false teachers who were part of Peter’s church and had now rejected the gospel they first embraced. The entire discussion on limited atonement in this verse cannot be segregated from the issue of whether believers can truly apostatize. That is an issue we will face again in this chapter since Peter spoke of those who “have left the straight way” (2:15), of those who have escaped the clutches of the world through knowing Christ but have subsequently been entangled and conquered by the world again (2:20), of those who have known the way of righteousness but have now turned from it (2:21). The issue raised by these verses will be discussed in 2:17–22. We must see, however, that 2:1 raises fundamentally the same question.

 

The easiest solution, in some ways, would be to take the verse straightforwardly. Some who submit to Christ’s lordship subsequently deny him and are therefore damned forever. This is now the view of most commentators, and it has the virtue of providing a lucid and uncomplicated understanding of the text. At one level the proposed interpretation is correct. Some members of the Christian community had departed from the Christian faith. The issue is whether those who are genuinely Christians can commit apostasy. Peter taught elsewhere that those who are called by God’s grace are effectually called by his own glory and excellence (2 Pet 1:3), and 1 Pet 1:5 clearly says that those who belong to God will be preserved by his power through faith so that they will possess eschatological salvation. When we add to this many other texts that teach that those whom God has called will never perish (e.g., Rom 8:28–39; 1 Cor 1:8–9; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23–24), it suggests that we should consider another interpretation. I would suggest that Peter used phenomenological language. In other words, he described the false teachers as believers because they made a profession of faith and gave every appearance initially of being genuine believers. Peter did not refer to those who had been outside the community of faith but to those who were part of the church and perhaps even leaders among God’s people. Their denial of Jesus Christ reveals that they did not truly belong to God, even though they professed faith. Peter said that they were bought by Jesus Christ, in the sense that they gave every indication initially of genuine faith. In every church there are members who appear to be believers and who should be accepted as believers according to the judgment of charity. As time elapses and difficulties arise, it becomes apparent that they are wolves in the flock (Acts 20:29–30), that though they called on Jesus as Lord their disobedience shows that he never knew them (Matt 7:21–23), that they are like the seed sown on rocky or thorny ground that initially bears fruit but dries up and dies when hard times come (Matt 13:20–22). (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude [The New American Commentary 37; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003], 328-32)

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Monday, July 29, 2024

Jason A. Staples on Dishonored Vessels in Romans

  

NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND: DISHONORED VESSELS REDEEMED

 

In the context of the larger argument about God’s justice and mercy toward his people, the point is that even vessels for dishonorable use ultimately serve God’s redemptive purposes. Like Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, whose form was “without honor” (ατιμον; cf. Jer 22:28) and who was “dishonored and not esteemed” (Isa 53:5 LXX)—God is using those who were dishonored as instruments of mercy so that both the vessels of honor and dishonor can be redeemed. The incorporation of transformed gentiles is the means by which formerly rejected Israel is being restored from its dishonored, broken state. Far from representing God’s departure from Israel, the incorporation of gentiles is the new covenant community therefore serves as proof of God’s continuing fidelity to unfaithful Israel. God’s mercy for his people runs so deeply that he has begun incorporating gentiles to ensure the redemption of those Israelites who assimilated into the nations.

 

The implication of this redemptive action also cuts the other way, as those who are now faithful and disobedient stand in danger of the same dishonorable consequences experienced by disobedient Israel in the past (e.g. Hos 8:8; Jer 19, 22:28). They may even be reshaped to serve as vessels of God’s wrath akin to the gentile kings and empires of old. And as suggested by the concluding “for destruction” in Rom 9:22, the typical fate of such utensils for wrath after completing their purpose was—as for Pharaoh in Exodus—their own destruction (e.g., Isa 10:12). It should be noted, however, that Paul portrays the clay not as finished and hardened but rather as still in the molding process. That is, he says nothing of the potter “breaking the flawed, pot to reconstruct it” as though the pot were already formed. Rather, the process of reshaping takes place before the pot is “hardened” (9:18), Once the clay has been fired in the kiln, it can no longer be reshaped but only destroyed once it is no longer of use.

 

Along these lines, “hardening” (σκληρυνειν; 9:18) therefore is best understood here as the final step of judgment at which point the vessel is set in its given shape and is hardened to remain that way permanently. “Hardening” does not involve reshaping; it involves permanently setting the clay in the state in which it already exists. But in Rom 9:20-24, the potter is depicted as still working with the clay, which has not yet become hardened. God’s mercy entails showing patience with the clay trying to form it into a better vessel prior to hardening it in its final state. In light of God’s pathos and mercy, the potter/clay imagery therefore serves as a call to repentance for those vessels that are as yet unfinished and unhardened, as one second-century Christian explains:

 

For we are clay in the hand of the craftsman. As in the case of a potter; if he makes a vessel that is turned or crushed in his hands, he can reshape it again. But if he has already put it into the kiln, he can no longer rescue it. Thus also with us. As long as we are in this world, we should repent from the evil that we did in the flesh. (2 Clem. 8:2)

 

In this respect the lesson of the potter and clay is although God does have the autonomy to show mercy to whomever he chooses, God does not act arbitrarily but always in responsive relationship with the vessel being formed. Each is therefore “to submit in creaturely humility before the divine potter, and perhaps by implication, to submit thereby also to his power to remake.” Paul therefore does not regard his contemporary fleshly kin as already hardened beyond repair but rather as not-yet-fired clay still having the opportunity to repent, hoping through his ministry “to save some of them” (11:14).

 

But his redemptive hopes stretch still further: even if they do not heed the message, Paul still appeals to God’s redemptive action among the gentiles, as proof that God’s mercy may still prevail. If God has made such redemptive use even of Israel’s past disobedience as to result in the extension of the promise to gentiles, God can use present disobedience for similarly redemptive purposes. That is, just as God is now redeeming previously dishonored vessels through such an extreme step as the transformation and inclusion of gentiles, so also he may show mercy in those currently resisting his purposes. God’s redemption of the former group demonstrates has continued concern for the latter also. Thus all stand on equal footing before a God whose intention is to show mercy to al, and the present incorporation of the gentiles paradoxically serves as the prime proof of God’s overarching mercy and faithfulness to Israel. (Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024], 209-11)

 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Blog Archive