MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

The Book of Ezra

Related Media

Teaching Outline for Ezra

Text and Canonicity

In the Hebrew Bible (MT) Ezra-Nehemiah is a single work. But in the Septuagint (LXX), Latin Vulgate (ca. AD 400) and our English Bible it has been divided into two separate works.1 In the LXX, the title Ezra is Esdras Beta (the name Esdras is a translation equivalent for Ezra), and Nehemiah is Esdras Gamma. In the Latin Vulgate, Ezra is known as 1 Esdras and Nehemiah is known as 2 Esdras. This can be confusing since in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha there are two other, similarly named works. See the chart below.

Septuagint (LXX):

Esdras Beta

Esdras Gamma

Esdras Alpha

 

Latin Vulgate:

1 Esdras

2 Esdras

3 Esdras

4 Esdras

NRSV:

Ezra

Nehemiah

1 Esdras2

2 Esdras

Ezra and Nehemiah: Contemporaries?

There have been three primary views with regard to the date of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem. It is clear that the text joins his coming to Jerusalem with the reign of Artaxerxes, but which Artaxerxes is in view? 3 If Artaxerxes I, Ezra returned in 458 BCE, the seventh year of the king’s reign (Ezra 7:8). After completing certain reforms, it is conceivable that Ezra returned to Susa. Some thirteen years later in 445, Nehemiah came to Jerusalem and began rebuilding the walls. He stayed for twelve years. During this twelve years Ezra returned again, and the two worked together reforming the exiles. This means that both Ezra and Nehemiah were for a time contemporaries, as is suggested by Nehemiah 8:2. This is the traditional view, but it is not without its problems. Why is Nehemiah the governor not mentioned in Ezra? Further, why is Ezra only mentioned once in Nehemiah’s memoirs and nothing is said of his reforms earlier in 458 BCE?

For these and other reasons, some scholars have developed other scenarios. It has been suggested that Ezra did not return under Artaxerxes I, but Artaxerxes II, in 398 BCE. This places Ezra after the time of Nehemiah. This seems to cohere better with the problem of marriage to foreign wives. If, under the traditional view, Ezra had dealt with that problem, why was it still an issue when Nehemiah arrived some thirteen or so years later? To some scholars it seems that Ezra came after Nehemiah, in the reign of Artaxerxes II, in 398. But that is not the only problem.

More central to this view is the mention of Ezra going to the private room of Johanan (Ezra 10:6). But in Nehemiah 12:22 Johanan is referred to as the grandson of Eliashib, who himself was a contemporary of Nehemiah. If the people have been correctly identified, this means that Ezra must have been in Jerusalem much later than Nehemiah.

There are three important reasons, however, that make a 398 return highly unlikely. First, as we indicated above, Nehemiah 8:2 suggests that both Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries. Second, Fensham speaks to the issue of marriages to foreign women:

When Nehemiah returned from Jerusalem a few years later, he was shocked by the increase in foreign marriages. As Nehemiah 13 shows, even the cultic services at the temple had come to a standstill. This was one of the bleak moments in the history of Judaism, when the people were prone to forget the reforms of their leaders. If such regression could have happened in only a few years since Nehemiah had left Jerusalem (433-430), quite conceivably the same could have occurred after a thirteen-year interval from the start of Ezra’s reforms (458-445).4

Third, there is no evidence at all that the Johanan mentioned in Ezra 10:6 is really the same person as the grandson of Eliashib mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22. The fact that Johanan was a common name at the time makes this association highly unlikely.5 Thus the traditional view is to be preferred over a view which endorses a late return for Ezra (i.e., around 398).

Another view argues that Ezra returned in the thirty-seventh year of Artaxerxes I, during Nehemiah’s second term (428 BCE). This argument is based largely on the unfounded supposition that there is a textual corruption in Ezra 7:8 where it is alleged that the “seventh” year should be amended to the “thirty-seventh” year. As ingenious as this solution appears, it unfortunately lacks even a shred of textual evidence to commend it.

In short, though it is not without its problems, the traditional view is still the most likely and therefore the one to be preferred. Thus a plausible outline of events would include: (1) Ezra returns in 458 and initiates certain reforms. After this, he returns to Susa; (2) appointed by Artaxerxes I, Nehemiah takes up the governorship of Judah in 445. He remains twelve years, during which Ezra returns to Jerusalem; (3) Ezra helps Nehemiah as governor and is thus mentioned in Nehemiah 12 (e.g., vv. 26, 36). This scenario also explains why Nehemiah the governor is not mentioned in Ezra’s reforms (Ezra 8-10). In the end, through their combined efforts, the temple and the city walls were rebuilt.

Authorship and Date

Several suggestions have been made as to the author(s) of the combined work of Ezra-Nehemiah. It seems likely that whoever edited the Chronicles, since 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 leads naturally into the first few verses of Ezra, probably edited the production of Ezra-Nehemiah. Strands of Jewish tradition regard Ezra as the compiler of the Chronicles and therefore the author/editor of Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g., Baba Bathra 15a). Most modern interpreters, however, do not regard Ezra as the final editor, but rather see a process of editing that may have continued down to 400 BCE.6

Historical Background

In 722 BCE Israel in the north (i.e., Samaria) had finally given way to Assyrian aggression. But Assyria herself was eventually overrun by the Babylonians in 612 BCE when they plundered Ninevah, Assyria’s capital. The Babylonians repeatedly attacked Judah’s capital, Jerusalem, finally laying siege to it and exiling many of her important people (artisans, craftsmen) in 586 BCE. Judah had been punished by God just as Jeremiah and the prophets had predicted. But punishment was not to last forever.

The Persian empire was growing in strength until 539 BCE, when Cyrus II, the Persian king, overran Babylon with relative ease, establishing Persia as the new super-power of the Near East. The Persians, however, maintained a different policy toward conquered peoples, permitting them to return to their homelands. The first return of the Jews, then, came in 538/537 BCE when Zerubbabel and several thousand Jews went up to the city of God to establish the altar and resume sacrifices (Ezra 1-6). Later, under the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-423), both Ezra (Ezra 7-10) and Nehemiah returned, in 458 and 445 respectively. Nehemiah remained in Jerusalem for at least twelve years though it only took him 52 days to complete the building of the walls (Neh 6:15).

Theological Themes

The book of Ezra, in conjunction with Nehemiah, records the fulfillment of God’s promise to restore his people to their land after seventy years of Babylonian captivity. In keeping with this, there is stress laid on God’s sovereignty over both his own people, but also foreign kings and peoples as well. It was he who “stirred up the spirit” of Cyrus II (1:1) to permit any willing Israelite to return to his land. And it was he who later prompted Darius I (6:14, 22) and Artaxerxes I (7:11-13ff) to decree similarly (9:9).

Ezra also lays stress on the theme of God’s covenant with his people, reflected especially in the Lord’s special presence in the temple and Israel’s special access to him through God-appointed sacrifice. Thus the rebuilding of the altar and the temple (Ezra 3-6), and the offering of sacrifices, receives considerable attention in Ezra. So also the joy and exuberance of the people (3:10-13; 6:22).

But religious reform is essentially meaningless in Israelite theology without spiritual and ethical reform. Marriages to foreign women, though forbidden in the law of Moses (cf. Ezra 9:11-12), were rampant during Ezra’s time and posed an enormous threat to Israel’s future commitment to remain true to YHWH. The solution was drastic, yet necessary: after Ezra’s lengthy confession to God and plea for his mercy (9:5-15), the people decide to put their foreign wives away (10:19). Thus, the religious purity of the people was restored, if ever so briefly, through the work of Ezra. The overall focus in Ezra, then, is on the return of the Lord’s people to (1) the worship of the God who keeps his covenant; (2) to the land He promised to give his people; and (3) to religious and ethical purity.


1 The same is true of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.

2 1 Esdras is part of the OT Apocrypha and dates from about the second century BCE (ca. 150). 2 Esdras is an apocalyptic work for the most part and forms part of the OT Pseudepigrapha. It dates from the end of the first century CE and is probably written in response to the Jewish sufferings in light of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Neither 1 nor 2 Esdras is part of the Protestant canon, but since the Council of Trent 1 Esdras has been recognized by the Catholic church as deutero-canonical, though Jerome relegated it to an appendix in his Latin Vulgate. For further information on these books, including their provenance, themes and problems, see J. E. Wright, “Esdras, Books of,” in Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 337-40; Z. Talshir, “1 Esdras,” in Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 341-42.

3 In Ezra 7:1, 8 the text joins the return of Ezra to the reign of king Artaxerxes, either Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464-423) or Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-359 BCE). See Gleason Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 419.

4 F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 7.

5 Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 8.

6 Cf. Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 229-30, who argue that, while there are no historical errors in the text, a Chronicler (not Ezra) later wove together the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah (with other reliable sources) into a theological history of the restoration of the people of Israel. This, they argue, does not impinge on the inspiration of scripture for God inspired the Chronicler much like he did Luke in the collecting, editing, and employing of sources in the writing of his gospel (cf. Luke 1:1-4).

An Introduction to the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah

Related Media

I. CANONICITY:

A. Hebrew: The Hebrew title is hymjn-arzu (Ezra-Nehemiah)1

1. arzu is probably an Aramaic form of the Hebrew term rzu, meaning to help2

2. hymjn is Hebrew meaning Yahweh comforts.3

3. The Writings: The Hebrew placement of the books is among the Writings just before Chronicles4 and after Daniel:

a. The Hebrew Scriptures were probably originally canonized into a two-fold division: the Law and the Prophets5

b. By around the second century B.C.6 a three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures arose: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings7

1) The three-fold division included the same books as the two-fold division

2) There are several possible reasons for a three-fold division:8

a) A distinction was made between books which were written by men who held the prophetic office, and men who only had the prophetic gift

b) Some at a later date may have felt that those books which were not written by prophets were not fully canonical

c) A more practical purpose was served by the topical and festal9 significance rather than by the two-fold categories

4. Unity: It seems that in the Hebrew canon Ezra and Nehemiah were one book (Ezra-Nehemiah)

a. Ezra Nehemiah were regarded as one by the Babylonian Talmud,10 Josephus11 and Melito of Sardis12

b. In the MT there is no space between the end of Ezra 10 and the beginning of Nehemiah 113

c. In the MT the verse statistics are given for both books at the end of Nehemiah and not at the end of Ezra14

d. Perhaps Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah were a first and second volume of Hebrew history15

e. The books were not divided in the Hebrew canon until around the fifteenth century A.D. (1448) when a Hebrew manuscript divided the books into two. This was sustained in the Bomberg edition of 152516

B. Greek: The Greek titles are ESDRAS and NEEMIAS17

1. The LXX also grouped Ezra and Nehemiah together as one book calling the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah Esdras B or 2 Esdras with 1 Esdras being the apocryphal book18

2. Later, by the time of Origen, the LXX divided the books of Ezra and Nehemiah

C. Latin: The Latin Vulgate divided Ezra-Nehemiah into First and Second Ezra because of the duplicate list in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.

II. AUTHORS: Ezra and Nehemiah (and a possible Chronicler)

A. The Book of Ezra was written by the spiritual leader Ezra the scribe/priest

1. The Babylonian Talmud identifies Ezra the scribe as the chronicler of 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah19

2. Note the use of the first person in Ezra 7:27--9:15

B. Most of Nehemiah seems to have been written by Nehemiah since it too is in the first person (cf. 1:1--7:5; 12:31--13:31)

C. It seems that Ezra incorporated into one work his writings in Ezra and Nehemiah (chapter 7) as well as Nehemiah's personal memoirs in Nehemiah

D. Another possibility is that a later, but not much later, Chronicler combined the works of Ezra and Nehemiah into the canonical work of Ezra-Nehemiah

III. DATE: Some time around 433/432-400 B.C.

A. Ezra: Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem was probably in 458/457 B.C.20

1. Ezra 7:1 affirms that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes the king of Persia

2. Ezra 7:8 affirms that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Artaxerxes)

a. The is some question as to whether this was in the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464-423 B.C.) or Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-359 B.C.)21

b. The evidence seems to be that this was during the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus; therefore, the seventh year of his reign would have been 458/457 B.C.

1) Nehemiah 8:2 identifies Ezra as Nehemiah's contemporary

2) The Elephantine Papyri22 [c. 400 B.C.] mentions Johanan (the grandson of Eliashib [Neh 3:1, 20])23

B. Nehemiah I: Nehemiah's first arrival in Jerusalem was probably in 445/444 B.C.

1. Nehemiah 1:2 and 2:1 affirm that the events of Nehemiah occurred in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes

2. Nehemiah arrived the first time in Jerusalem twelve-thirteen years after Ezra arrived

C. Nehemiah II: Nehemiah's second arrival in Jerusalem was probably in 433/432-420 B.C.

1. Nehemiah 13:6-7 reads, But during all this time I was not in Jerusalem, for in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon I had gone to the king. After some time, however, I asked leave from the king, and I came to Jerusalem and learned about the evil ....

2. Nehemiah left Jerusalem in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes

3. Nehemiah may also have returned to Jerusalem in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (this is not certain since the text reads, After some time, ...

D. Conclusion: While portions of each book were probably written earlier during the lives and events of their authors, it seems that they were combined and canonized some time after Nehemiah's second return to Jerusalem in 433/432 B.C.24

IV. PURPOSES FOR THE BOOKS OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH

A. To provide a record of the reconstruction of the Hebrew theocracy upon the physical and spiritual foundations of the past25

B. To emphasize covenant renewal in the restored community (e.g., Neh 8-10)

C. To demonstrate God's faithfulness through the physical rebuilding and dedication of the wall (cf. Zeph 3:19-20; Hag 2:1-9)

D. To emphasize the historical and theological continuity between the preexilic and postexilic Israel through the institution of the temple, installation of officers like priests and temple servants, the emphasis of the Law of Moses

E. To proclaim the legitimacy of the restored community's religious, political, economic, and social life as God's people (cf. Neh 9:32-37)

F. To trace the re-establishment of Yahweh worship and the securing of Jerusalem as a religious community separated from all foreign influences unto Yahweh's Law26

G. To foreshadow the full restoration of the nation through that which was accomplished by Ezra and Nehemiah27


1 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung), 1411.

2 BDB, s.v. rz^u* , 740.

3 BDB, s.v. hy*m=j#n= , p. 637.

4 Perhaps Ezra-Nehemiah is placed before Chronicles (even though it covers information after Chronicles) because it was included in the canon first whereas Chronicles was included later since it had information similar to Samuel and Kings (cf. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1136)

5 The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which Moses' Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures, (2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the books [9:2], and (4) the recognition of the Former prophetic books by the Latter (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, pp. 148-161).

6 Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke 24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).

7 The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books--Psalms, Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books--Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of 22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 18-19).

8 Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of compositions--Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings (c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above). See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151.

This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write, Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p. 508-509).

9 Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in mourning for the destruction of Solomon's temple), Ecclesiastes (third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).

10 Bab. Bath. 15a.

11 Contr. Apion. 1.8.

12 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV.26.

13 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung), 1430.

14 Ibid., 1458.

15 This is supported by the similarity of 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-2 (see Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 228-29). Childs writes, The repetition of the last verses of Chronicles in the introduction of Ezra, ..., interprets the Ezra story as a continuation of Israel's history. The author focuses only on certain events as theologically significant. Chapters 1--6 progress from release under Cyrus to the reconstruction of the temple. Chapters 7--10 treat the arrival of Ezra and his initial reform. Nehemiah 1--6 records the building of the walls and Neh. 7-13 handle the reordering of the community's life. Moreover, the particular structuring of these events reveal the writer's perspective. Ezra 1--6, 7--10 along with Neh. 1--6 are only preparation for the climax of this sacred history which occurs in the combined activity of Ezra and Nehemiah in chs. 7--13. Likewise, the last chapter (13.4ff) is subordinated to this section and not given an independent significance ...) (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 632-33).

16 R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1135.

17 Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library), 617, 631.

18 Hill and Walton write,Two books in the Old Testament Apocrypha are titled 'Esdras,' the Greek equivalent of the name Ezra. The apocryphal 2 Esdras is an apocalyptic work of the late first century A.D. and has no connection with the historical Ezra. The Apocryphal 1 Esdras dates to the second century B.C. and includes material from 2 Chronicles 35:1 through the end of the Old Testament book of Ezra, with Nehemiah 7:73--8:12 forming an appendix to the text. Though the book of 1 Esdras has some value for comparative analysis with the biblical texts of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, the book is generally considered inferior both historically and theologically to the Old Testament book of Ezra (e.g., 1 Esd. 5:70-73) (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 228-229; For a good chart on this see LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 639; see also R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1135-36).

19 Baba Bathra 15a. It also adds that the work was completed by Nehemiah.

20 This was the second return from Exile. The first return was under Zerubbabel in 538 B.C. when Cyrus was King (Ezra 1--6). The second return was under Ezra in 458/457 while Artaxexes I Longimanus was King (Ezra 7--10) and the third return was under Nehemiah in 445/444 B.C. also while Artaxerxes I Longimanus was king (Nehemiah 1--13).

For a discussion of problems with the dates of Ezra-Nehemiah see Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 420-24. John Bright, A History of Israel, 391-402.

21 See Albright's early discussions. He seems to have changed his mind about this matter.

22 LaSor et al write, These business documents and letters were found on the island of Elephantine, north of the first cataract of the Nile and opposite Aswan. They belonged to a Jewish military colony established at least as early as the fall of Jerusalem in 586. The texts throw brilliant light on the affairs of the Jewish colony in Upper Egypt, especially for the period 425-400. In 410 these Jews wrote a letter to Johanan, high priest at Jerusalem (Neh. 12:22), regarding the rebuilding of their temple. In 407 they sent a long appeal in the same regard to Bagoas, governor of Judah, in which they mentioned a similar letter to 'Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria. Assuming this is the same Sanballat who was the inveterate enemy of Nehemiah (2:19; 4:1 [MT 3:33]), the Artaxerxes referred to in 2:1 must be Artaxerxes I (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 560, n. 33; See also ANET, pp. 491ff).

23 Archer writes, This Johanan was a grandson of the Eliashib mentioned in Nehemiah 3:1 and 20 and Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib. It therefore follows that when the biblical record speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh 1:1) and again in his thirty-second year (Neh. 13:6), the reference must be to Artaxerxes I (yielding the date 445 and 433 respectively) rather than the reign of Artaxerxes II (which would result in the dates 384 and 372 respectively--far too late for the high priesthood of Johanan) (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 419-20).

24 It is also possible that a later Chronicler edited the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah into this final form around 400 B.C. While this conclusion is not absolutely necessary, it is a possibility (see Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 229-30).

25 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 419. Continuing he writes, As God protected His remnant from the hatred of external foes, so also He delivered them from the insidious corruption of the false brethren within the commonwealth (Ibid.).

26 Johnson writes, Although Israel now lived under Persian rule God worked in mercy through the Gentiles to restore a true form of worship and true worshippers separated to Himself. It would be in this context that YHWH would come to be received and worshipped in Spirit and truth (Elliott E. Johnson, Synthesis of Ezra, [unpublished class notes in 303 Old Testament History II, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1981], 10). Continuing he writes, Whereas Ezra primarily was concerned with worship Nehemiah is primarily civil. Yet its civil establishment as a city in the Persian empire is not secular and political but establishes itself under Mosaic law as a religious community. The political authority remains securely in the control of Persia under whom Nehemiah functions. Still, it is YHWH's initiative and will that are being affected in the establishment of Jerusalem (Elliott E. Johnson, Synthesis of Nehemiah, [unpublished class notes in 303 Old Testament History II, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1981], 9).

27 Childs writes, The reading of the law has been assigned to this section of Nehemiah [chapters 8--12] because it was only after the completion of the wall and the settlement of the people (7.5ff) that the conditions for the full restoration of the community were met. Separation unto God was internal as well as external. For this reason, Ezra's early reform and Nehemiah's building programme only served to foreshadow the full restoration. It has been reserved for the Nehemiah chapters to describe the formation of the ideal community of faith. This task required a combining of the sacred with the secular in a divine theocracy, and thus called forth the participation of both Ezra and Nehemiah as representatives of these two different offices. The paradigmatic purposes of these chapters in describing the ideal, faithful community is made further apparent in the two summaries at the conclusion of the assembly. 'On that day' (12.44; 13.1) both the service of worship and the purity of the people were established.

To summarize, the books of Ezra-Nehemiah offer an extreme example of a canonical process which has disregarded a strictly literary or historical sequence in order to describe the restoration as a theological model for the obedient and holy people of God. (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 636-37).

Johnson writes, It is written to demonstrate what God has done without any necessary implications directing attention to future actions. Rather, based on the demonstration of what God has begun to fulfill, the godly reader is encouraged to anticipate a complete fulfillment of what He has begun. The godly Jews were expected to continue in purity of worship with an expectation that God would continue to work He had begun (Elliott E. Johnson, Ezra and Nehemiah, [unpublished class notes in 327 Seminar in Old Testament Historical Literature, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1989], 5).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to the Book of Esther

Related Media

I. TITLE: The book is named after the character “Esther”

A. In Hebrew the title is rtsa which may be derived from the Persian word for star, stara1

B. In Greek the title is transliterated to ESQHR2

II. AUTHOR: Unstated and Unknown (Mordecai or Nehemiah?)

A. External Evidence:

1. The Babylonian Talmud attributes the writing of Esther to the men of the Great Synagogue3

2. Josephus affirmed that Mordecai wrote the book of Esther4

3. Some Rabbinic circles also affirmed that Mordecai wrote the book of Esther5

B. Internal Evidence:

1. The mention of Mordecai and his benevolence in Esther 10:3 may argue against Mordecai as the author of the book, but it need not completely eliminate him

2. The author seems to have been a resident of Persia rather than Palestine (but see Nehemiah below)

a. He had intimate knowledge of Persian customs

b. He had intimate knowledge of the layout of Susa and the royal palaces6

3. Sources of the author include:

a. The writings of Mordecai (Esther 9:20)

b. The books of the Chronicles of the Median and Persian kings (Esther 2:23; 6:1; 10:2)

c. Probably some oral traditions

4. The focus of the book implies that the author was a Jew interested in Jewish nationalism

C. A Possible Candidate--Nehemiah:

1. Nehemiah served Artaxerxes Longimanus I (465-424 B.C.), the successor of Xerxes (Ahasuerus, 486-464 B.C.)7

a. Nehemiah may have either known, or known of Mordecai

b. Nehemiah would have known of the event of Purim proclaimed in Esther either through living through it or hearing of it by his parents

2. Nehemiah was familiar with the palace and the government

3. Nehemiah was literate and had access to royal archives

4. Nehemiah may have written this book to reassure his people in Palestine of God’s sovereign protection and provision for their lives8

III. DATE: Mid-to-Late Fifth Century B.C. (464-415 B.C.)

A. Internal Evidence:

1. It seems that the book was written after the death of Ahasuerus when His official state history had been compiled (1:1; 10:1-2)9

2. The Hebrew “Ahasuerus” is usually identified with Xerxes I (486-465/64 B.C.)

a. The Persian was khshayarsha

b. The Elephantine papyri spell the name kshy’resh which is close to the Greek Xerxes

3. The book reflects the background of the Jewish dispersion:

a. Intimate knowledge of Persian customs

b. Intimate knowledge of the topography of Susa and the Persian royal palaces10

c. Persian names and loan-words throughout the book

4. The events of the book of Esther occurred between those found in Ezra 6 and Ezra 7 extending over a decade11

B. External Evidence:

1. The LXX and Joseph read “Artaxexes” throughout; some have affirmed that this implied an identification with Artaxerxes II (404-359 B.C.), but traditionally the references was identified with Xerxes I”12

2. Those who identify a late date for Esther (c. 135-104 B.C.) understand the book to be a description of the Maccabean struggle under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Haman)

a. But this allegorical identification defies the historical clues which are in the text (2:5-6)

b. But the fighting in Esther is not for religion (as with the Maccabean era), but for the very existence of the people

c. But the local of the book is Persia and not Palestine

d. But the manuscript discoveries mitigate against a Maccabean date13

e. But Esther shows no evidence of the legalistic Judaism of the Maccabean era (Torah, prayer, Jewish feasts etc.)14

f. But the book does not have apocalyptic elements (Michael, angelic beings, Satan, dualism, etc.)

C. Conclusions:

1. If Ahasuerus is identified with Xerxes I, than that book was not written before 465/4 B.C.

2. Most conservatives think that the author lived during the end of the fifth century B.C. or the close of the Persian Period (539-333)15

3. If Nehemiah was the author (above), then this would provide collaborating evidence for a mid-to-late fifth century date (464-415 B.C.)16

IV. HISTORICITY:

A. Although Esther 2:5-7 has been considered a problem in that it was thought to affirm that Mordecai was carried into captivity in 597 and the story of Esther occurred 124 years later; but it is better understood that Kish was the one taken into captivity and that Mordecai was born within Persia17

B. Some have objected that Amestris was a powerful wife of Ahasuerus, and her name cannot be connected with either Vashti’s or Esther’s name:18

1. This may be explained by the fact that Ahasuerus had a large harem from which he may have changed wives several times

2. This may be explained by the fact that it was not uncommon for nobles to have several names in those days (e.g., Xerxes/Ahasuerus)

C. Some have objected to Xerxes sending decrees in different languages, but this may have well be due the tolerance of the Persians towards those people whom they had conquered19

D. Some have objected to the number of people who were killed on the day of Purim:

1. But large massacres occurred before this time in the Ancient Near East20

2. When 75,000 is extended into the many cities of the Persian empire, it is not implausible

3. The background of the book of Esther is so full of accurate Persian detail that it may be assumed that this number is also true21

E. Some have objected that the feast of Purim is not to be identified with the “lot” but with other systems of celebration like the Persian spring festival, the Babylonian feast, or the Greek pithoigia or “cask-opening” season marked by drinking and giving gifts22, but it has been demonstrated that the term for Purim comes from the Assyrian word puru meaning a “die” or “lot” describing the Persian method of throwing dice which was similar to the Jewish practice of “casting lots”23

F. This work is a theological treatise of history in narrative form24

V. CANONICITY

A. The theme of triumph of Judaism over her enemies made Esther immediately popular

B. There have been protests about including Esther in the canon of scripture before and after the Council of Jamnia which pronounced it canonical25

C. In A.D. 120 Esther was basically secured in the canon with the Christian church accepting it overall26

VI. PURPOSES

A. To provide the historical background for the feast of Purim27

B. To emphasize the continuing, ongoing, religious significance of the Jewish people28

C. To encourage the Babylonian/Persian Jews and those who had returned to Palestine (if Nehemiah is the author) of God’s providential ability and willingness to preserve them29 against their enemies30


1 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 425.

2 Hill and Walton write, In the Greek translation, the book has over a hundred additional verses. This longer version was available as early as Jerome in the fourth century A.D. and already had a long tradition by then. In this expanded form the story included such passages as a dream of Mordecai that reveals to him the plot against the king, letters from Mordecai and Xerxes, and prayers of Mordecai and Esther. These additions served the function of inserting God more obviously into the plot, but they have no claim to authenticity (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 238-239).

3 Baba Bathra 15a.

4 Antiquities XI.6.1, but the ending of the book gives the impression that Mordecai's career was over.

5 See R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1087, n. 1.

6 See illustrations in Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 241; John C. Whitcomb, Esther: Triumph of God's Sovereignty, 6-9; LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 625.

7 John Bright, A History of Israel, 379; F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 14-16.

8 Derickson writes, Having returned to Judah to restore Jerusalem and being involved with the reconstruction of the people both nationally and spiritually (alongside Ezra), he would have had a personal interest and seen a need for the Palestinian Jews to be reassured of God's protection and provision for their well being. Thus (I speculate) upon his return to Persia following his tour as governor of Judah he very likely interviewed eye witnesses and/or researched the records and wrote the Scroll of Esther (Gary W. Derickson, An Argument of Esther, [paper submitted for the course 372 Seminar in Old Testament Historical Literature, Spring 1989], 2).

9 R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1087. The epilogue in Esther 10:1-2 is understood to be a reference to his death like those in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

10 Ibid., 1097-98.

11 John A. Martin, Esther, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 699.

12 R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1088.

13 Ibid., 1090. Hill and Walton affirm that analysis of the Hebrew language used in the book indicates that it is older than the second century B.C. (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 238). This is because the Greek additions were already in the LXX (second century at the latest) and they were not part of the original Hebrew (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 628). The Hebrew of Esther is not like that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls concerning which Esther is the only canonical book not found at Qumran (Ibid.).

14 LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 628.

15 R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1088.

16 Derickson writes, The arguments for early writing all fit well for Nehemiah as its author. He would have been literate in Hebrew and could have incorporated the Persian loan words easily since he would have also been fully literate in their language. Finally, his position within the Persian court could well account for his intentional silence concerning the name of God or any references to prayer. He would have been sensitive to court attitudes concerning non-state religions. His own memoirs (the Book of Nehemiah), on the other hand, would have been more personal and could have been left in or sent to Judah without needing to be presented before the king or another of his officials for approval (Gary W. Derickson, An Argument of Esther, [paper submitted for the course 372 Seminar in Old Testament Historical Literature, Spring 1989], 4).

17 R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1090.

18 Ibid., 1091.

19 Ibid., 1092.

20 Ibid.

21 La Sor, Hubbard, Bush, Old Testament Survey, 626.

22 R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1093-95.

23 Ibid., 1095; LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 625, n. 3.

24 Hill and Walton write, Defending the accuracy of the book, however, does not obligate the interpreter to postulate that the book's primary intention is to record history. The literary style and features of the book do not commend it as belonging to a genre that is intended only to chronicle history. On the contrary, it possesses many of the characteristics of the modern short story, with fast-paced action, narrative tension, irony, and reversal. The blend of these literary features with a historical setting and a theological purpose, however, suggest that the genre of the book of Esther is unique to itself. There is nothing like it in ancient literature, and in the Bible, only the story of Joseph comes close (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 240).

LaSor et al call the work a historical novella or short story, but by saying such they question the truthfulness of the book (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 626, 629).

25 R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1100; The Jerusalem Talmud questioned the books canonicity because it introduced a new feast (Meg. 70d; cf. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 627, n. 7).

26 For a history of critical challenge see R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1100. LaSor et al affirm that Esther was not officially recognized as Scripture by Christians until A. D. 397 at the council of Carthage (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 627, n. 7).

27 This includes explaining the two days when Purim was celebrated (cf. 9:20-27).

Childs writes, The festival celebrate the days of rest when the Jew got relief from their enemies (v. 22). It is, therefore, not to be understood as a victory celebration, but a rejoicing over the relief from persecution, a celebration of rest (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 604). Continuing he writes, What is the canonical effect on the book of Esther which this appendix in 9.20-32 provides? The original story of the persecution and rescue of the Jews is retained as normative scripture along with its intrigue, brutality, nationalism, and secularity, but the story has been given a new theological interpretation within the worship of Israel. The celebration is set in the framework of fasting and mourning, the full religious meaning of which has been carefully defined throughout the rest of Israel's sacred tradition. The manner of the celebration in all its original 'secularity' is unchanged, but the object of the hilarity is redefined. All Israel shares in the joy of rest and relief which is dramatized by the giving of gifts,especially to the poor. It is a time to remember by hearing again the story of Purim. The effect of the reshaping of the festival is not to make a secular festival into a religious one, but to interpret the meaning of Purim in all its secularity in the context of Israel's existence, which is religious. The very language by which the festival is now regulated as the 'appointed seasons', 'gifts to the poor', 'rest from enemies', 'remembrance throughout every generation ... forever', draws Purim within the orbit of Israel's religious traditions (Ibid., 604-605)..

28 Childs writes, W. Visher saw the theological significance of Esther to lie in the manner in which it posed the 'Jewish question'. E. Bickerman denied that there ever was such an issue in the book. Perhaps the basic theological issue at stake in this disagreement has been more clearly formulated by R. Gordis: 'It is fundamental to the Jewish worl-outlook that the preservation of the Jewish people is itself a religious obligation of the first magnitude' (Megillat, 13). In my judgment, Gordis' assertion holds true for Christian theology if kept within the critical guidelines which have been fixed by the canonical context of Esther.

On the one hand, the book of Esther provides the strongest canonical warrant in the whole Old Testament for the religious significance of the Jewish people in an ethnic sense. The inclusion of Esther within the Christian canon serves as a check against all attempts to spiritualize the concept of Israel--usually by misinterpreting Paul--and thus removing the ultimate scandal of biblical particularity. On the other hand, the canonical shape of Esther has built into the fabric of the book a theological criticism of all forms of Jewish nationalism which occurs whenever 'Jewishness' is divorced from the sacred traditions which constitute the grounds of Israel's existence under God (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 607).

29 Hill and Walton write, The book of Esther has very particular points to make about the saving acts of the Lord. Israel's history was replete with the marvelous interventions of the Lord on behalf of his covenant people. The mighty plagues, the deliverance fro Egypt, the parting of the sea, and the crumbling of the walls of Jericho were classic examples of Yahweh's miraculous deliverance of Israel. More recently, the return of the exiles from their Babylonian captivity was evidence of God's continuing ability to accomplish the impossible.

But God is not so visible in the book of Esther. Where others may see coincidences, Israel saw the Lord at work. A king's insomnia could just as easily bring deliverance as receding waters. In the course of this book it therefore becomes evident that the well-known themes of prophecy and wisdom were still viable expressions of God's intentions even though Israel was scattered among the nations. The prophetic theme of God's protection of Israel and the judgment of her enemies (e.g., Zech. 1:21) was operating as the plot unfolded. Even more evident is the wisdom theme that God would prosper the righteous and bring to naught the schemes of the wicked (cf. Ps. 37:12-15).

The message comes through clearly: God's methods may vary, but his purposes do not. His workings may be obscured to skeptics by the disguise of coincidence, but the people of God recognize his sovereign hand in the ebb and flow of history. His name is not mentioned, but his influence is unmistakable (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 241).

30 Martin does not think that the book was written in Persia, but in Palestine to encourage Israelites that God was working on their behalf (John A. Martin, Esther, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 699). Concerning its setting he writes, At the time of the writing of the book ... the Jews in Palestine were going through difficult times in their struggle to rebuild their nation and to reestablish temple worship. It had taken the nation 21 years to complete the building of the temple (536-515) and, as is evident from the last half of the Book of Ezra, the people were not in good spiritual condition during the reign of Artaxerxes (464-424). Of course both Ezra and Nehemiah noted the reason for the nation's lowly condition; the people had not been following the Deuteronomic Covenant and therefore were under God's curse rather than under His promise of blessing. The Book of Esther, then, would have been a great encouragement to thee struggling Jews. It would have helped them realize that the surrounding peoples which seemed so awesome could never conquer the unique people of God. Israel was protected by God even though a large number of them was outside the land. The Book of Esther would also encourage them to worship the God of Israel, though He is not mentioned by name in it (Ibid., 699-700).

Childs notes the typology which the writer uses in identifying Haman and Mordecai through genealogies when he writes, Haman, the enemy of the Jews, is portrayed as the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite (3.1). He is thus linked to Agag, the king of the Amalekites (I Sam. 15.32), and to the long tradition of enmity with this tribe (Ex. 17.8ff.; Deut. 25.17ff.; I Sam. 15.17ff). Conversely, Mordecai is described as a descendant of Kish, the father of Saul. The effect of the introduction of these genealogies is, of course, to typify the characters, a move which the later midrashim exploited to the fullest (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 605).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to the Book of Job

Related Media

I. TITLE:

A. In Hebrew the name is boYa! probably from the root meaning “to come back,” or “repent,” thus describing one who “comes back” or “returns to” God.1

B. In Greek LXX the name is transliteration of the Hebrew consonants IWB.

II. AUTHOR: Possibly Job, Elihu, or a contemporary of Job

A. The author of the book is unknown

1. The text does not identify its author

2. Rabbinic tradition does not attempt to identify an author other than suggesting that the writer must have preceded Moses

B. Ones understanding of Date (below) contributes to one’s understanding of the author

C. Jacques Bolduc suggested in his commentary of 1637 that the book of Job may have been authored in a secondary way by Moses who found it in its original Aramaic form and translated it into Hebrew2

1. This could account for:

a. Its being possessed by the Hebrews

b. Its attaining a canonical status

c. The Aramaic tone in some of the terms and modes of expression in the text

2. But the style of Job is not really Mosaic; Moses uses the name of Yahweh often whereas Job uses other names, Job uses Arabic words unlike Moses, Moses would not have been familiar with Arabic customs, opinions, and manners

D. Job, Elihu, or a contemporary of Job:

1. The date of the book leans toward a patriarchal age

2. The foreign tone of the book allows for it to have been written by Job (Arabic words, nomadic habits, illustrations from sandy plains, awareness of nature and the arts)

III. DATE:

A. Date of the Events: Probably pre-Mosaic, even patriarchal from the second Millennium B.C.

1. Job is lacking references to historical events and reflects a non-Hebraic cultural background which little is known about

2. Location:

a. Uz was located in northern Arabia3

b. Job’s friend, Eliphaz, came from Teman, a city in Edom

c. Elihu came from the Buzites who lived next to the Chaldeans in northeast Arabia4

3. Support for a pre-Mosaic date:

a. The patriarchal family-clan organization reflects the time of Abraham rather than after the Exodus

b. The offering of sacrifice by the head of the family rather than a priest reflects a time before the Exodus

c. The mention of a qesitah as a type of money (Job 42:11) suggests a date which is at least during the time of Joshua (cf. Jos. 24:32), if not during the patriarchal period (cf. Gen 33:19)5

4. Support for an early second millennium date of Job as a contemporary with the patriarchs:

a. The reference in Ezekiel 14:14 to Job and Daniel may be a reference to the ancient Canaanite hero Dan’el who was a prominent figure in the Ugaritic epics rather than to the contemporary prophet, Daniel6

b. Other names in Job are authentic for the second millennium B.C.:

1) Bildad was short for Yabil Dadum, a name found in cuneiform sources of the second millennium B.C.

2) Job is found in the “Babylonian Job”, a cuneiform composition7

B. Date of Composition: Possibly during the time of the Patriarchs (Second Millennium B.C.)

1. The Patriarchal Age:

a. This was the view of the Talmud

b. This helps support the accuracy of the conversations between Job and his friends; but this is not necessary since portions of Genesis were accurately transmitted by mouth until Moses wrote them down

c. The addition of 42:16-17 could have been added shortly after Job’s death

d. The lifestyle and longevity of Job are similar to that of the patriarchs found in Genesis

e. The moving bands of Sabaeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:15, 17) matches the early second millennium B.C.

f. The literary genre of Job (below) matches that of the patriarchal era

g. The name of Job is found in the Amarna letters (c. 1350 B.C.) and the Egyptian Execration texts (c. 2000 B.C.)8

h. Although the evidence does not demand a second millennium B.C. date, it certainly allows for it. “9

2. The Reign of Solomon:

a. This was the view of Gregory Nazianzen (fourth century A.D.), Martin Luther, Haevernick, Keil and Delitzsch, Raven, Young, and Unger10

b. Solomon’s age was a peaceful one and thus particularly interested in wisdom’s approach to the deepest, practical problems of life (e.g., Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Proverbs)

c. The wisdom of Proverbs 8 and Job 28 is similar

d. While the above arguments are plausible, they are not determinative; as Archer writes, “most of the ... features above mentioned are reconcilable with an earlier date as well, particularly if the account was composed by a non-Israelite author on non-Israelite soil”11

e. In addition a delay of four centuries from the actual experience to the writing down of the experience raises the question of accuracy12

3. The Reign of Manasseh:

a. This was the view of Ewald and Hitzig.

b. Since this was a time of injustice, the thought is that Job fits the social setting well (cf. Job 9:24)

c. But Job does not present trouble that is any greater than could be found at any time in human history, and here the hardship is individual and private rather than national

4. The Reign of Jeremiah:

a. This was the view of J. E. Steinmueller

b. Similarity in language with Job and the writings of Jeremiah are cited as the basis for this time of composition (cf. Jer. 12:1-3 & Job 21:7; Jer. 20:14-18 & Job 3:3; the land of Uz is only mentioned outside of Job in Jeremiah 25:20 and Lamentations 4:21)

c. But the comparisons and language are not determinative since they can be found in other writings (cf. Ps 37), and it is also possible that Jeremiah borrowed from Job to express his themes of suffering and, “the fact that Uz is mentioned in Jeremiah 25:20 is hardly of pivotal significance unless it can be proved by other evidence that the name had not arisen until the age of Jeremiah or else was unknown to the Hebrews before his time”13

5. During or after the Exile (sixth century B.C.):

a. This was the view of Genung in ISBE, Driver, Budde, Cheyne

b. Arguments and Solutions are as follows:14

1) The book is understood to be legend and a depiction of the imprisonment and eventual release of king Jehoiachin
But Jehoiachin was not a righteous men and was not ever restored to his kingdom prior to his death

2) Although the problems of suffering was severe for the nation at the time of the exile, the exile was not the only time the nation suffered, and again the suffering in the book is personal rather than national15

3) The identification of the tempter as “Satan” was Persian, but it was also an identification under David (1 Chron 21:1; Ps 109:6)

4) The Aramaisms in the book suggest a late date, but Aramaic was used for hundreds of years before the Exile

5) Although several passages seems to refer to a national tragedy (9:24; 12:6, 13-25; 24:12) they are not clear enough, nor particular enough to demand an exilic interpretation

6. Conclusion: Although it is not possible to be certain, a patriarchal date is reasonable and perhaps best explains the material as we have it

IV. CANONICAL CONSIDERATIONS:

A. Job is placed in different places in different canons:

1. In the Talmud: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations

2. In the LXX: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Job

3. In the Peshitta: Deuteronomy, Job, Joshua

4. In the Council of Trent and Most English Bibles: Job, Psalms, Proverbs

5. In most Hebrew Bibles: Psalms, Proverbs, Job

6. In Kittel’s Biblica Hebraica (3rd edition) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Psalms, Job, Proverbs

B. Except for Theodore of Mopsuestia of the Antiochian school (A.D. 350-428) the book of Job has not been questioned with respect to its canonicity16

V. LITERARY GENRE:

A. Job is wisdom literature

B. Some wisdom literature of the Ancient Near East dealt with the same philosophical questions as Job:17

1. A Sumerian work entitled “Man and His God” (Ur III period, c. 2000 B.C.)

2. An Akkadian monologue entitled “Ludlul bel Nemeqi” (“I will praise the lord of Wisdom” dating to the end of the second millennium B.C.

3. “The Babylonian Theodicy” dated about 1000 B.C.

C. The similarity of Job with the Mesopotamian pieces with the use of dialogue (Job 4--27), soliloquy (Job 3), discourse (Job 29--41), narrative (Job 1--2), and poetic skill may argue against Job being a stage play even though it may have been used in this way later on in history

VI. PURPOSES:

A. To demonstrate that God is worthy of love apart from the blessings He provides18

B. To explain that God may allow suffering as a means to purify and strengthen a person in godliness19

C. To emphasize that man is unable to view life from God’s vast perspective20

D. To explore the justice of God who treats the righteous with suffering21

E. To demonstrate to the evil angels (Satan) that God’s practice of blessing the righteous is not a hindrance to the development of true righteousness22

F. To address Mankind’s wrestling with affliction which defies human explanation23


1 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 462. He notes that while another possible etymology for the name could be assailed one or one who is the object of enmity, the Arabic etymology matches better since the whole setting of the story is Arabic rather than Hebrew (Ibid.).

2 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 464.

3 Archer writes, the Septuagint refers to it as the land of the Aistai, a people whom Ptolemy the geographer locates in the Arabian desert adjacent to the Edomites of Mount Seir (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 464).

4 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 464.

5 Archer writes, But if the scene was laid in North Arabia near Edom, a clan type of society may well have persisted there as late as the time of the Hebrew monarchy. Possibly private sacrifices by the heads of families persisted alongside the official tribal priesthood.

The foreign locale would also account for the comparative rarity of the name Yahweh in most chapters of the book. Job shows a distinct preference for the pan-Semitic term, 'Eloah or 'Elohim, for God ... Interestingly enough, the title Shaddai, the Almighty, occurs no less than thirty-one times in Job as against its sixteen occurrences in the rest of the Old Testament. This evidence from the use of the divine names certainly tends to confirm the theory of a non-Israelite background (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 464-65).

6 Archer considers this dubious (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 465), but Taylor writes, Daniel alone is unknown from the Bible. He can hardly be Ezekiel's contemporary in exile: in any case the word used here is 'Dani'el' and not 'Daniyye'l' as in the book of that name. The likelihood is that this is the 'Dan'el' of the ancient Canaanite epic discovered in 1930 at Ras Shamra, the ancient Ugarit, on the north Syrian coast, and dating form about 1400 B.C. [The Tale of Aqhat: see DOTT, pp. 124-128; ANET, PP. 149-155]. he appears there mainly as the dispenser of fertility, but also as the upright one, judging the cause of the widow and of the fatherless. We must suppose either that this early Semitic literature was known to later Hebrew generations or, more likely, that ancient Hebrew traditions which have not survived incorporated material centered around a character of the same name and similar character to the Ugaritic Dan'el (John B. Taylor, Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1969], 129).

7 Archer writes, This is the story of a righteous man who underwent the bitterest agony of body and spirit, even though he was conscious of having lived an upright life, and nevertheless remained steadfast in the midst of his affliction. Ultimately he was granted a happier life than ever, to the glory of Marduk, the god of Babylon. This Babylonian account may go back to 1200 B.C., and may rest upon materials even earlier (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 465).

8 LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 560.

9 Archer writes, We may conclude therefore that there is no convincing evidence for either denying or insisting upon a pre-Mosaic date of composition (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 466)

Likewise Hill and Walton write, There are no real problems with this view, though it must be recognized that the evidence is scant (A Survey of the Old Testament, 264).

10 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 467.

11 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 467.

12 See Archer's discussion where he allows for the form of the book to express the sense of what happened without insisting that it be a verbatim account of the words of the characters (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 467-68). See also Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, who say, Once it is recognized that Job is part of the corpus of wisdom literature, it is possible to accept, as most scholars do, that the dialogue presented is not offered as a reporter's transcript quoting the precise words of each person involved. A high view of biblical inspiration requires one to take into consideration the literary genre of a book in order to understand how it ought to be interpreted (A Survey of the Old Testament, 263-64).

13 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 469.

14 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 469; Roy Zuck, Introductory Questions about Job (unpublished class notes in 303 Old Testament History II. Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1981), 6-7).

15 Walton and Hill write, the book of Job may have become of interest to the Israelites who were experiencing the Babylonian exile and trying to reconcile that event with their view of God.

Although the book unquestionably contains discussion and information that would be invaluable to the exiles (especially the idea that God's wisdom is the basis on which his justice may be vindicated), the scenario in Job seems too unlike Israel of the sixth century to invite too close a correlation. Most obviously, the book is insistent on Job's absolute innocence and vindicates him in the end. Such could hardly be said of Israel. Undoubtedly, however, the minority who were righteous in Israel may well have taken solace and found comfort in the teachings of the book of Job (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 268; see also LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 561-62).

16 LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 561, n. 2.

17 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 264-67. All of these deny such a thing as a righteous sufferer. See also LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 562, 572-82.

18 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 462.

19 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 462.

20 Archer writes, God's thoughts and ways are moved by considerations too vast for the puny mind of man to comprehend, since man is unable to see the issues of life with the breadth and vision of the Almighty; nevertheless God really knows what is best for His own glory and for our ultimate good. This answer is given against the background of the limited concepts of Job's three comforters, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.

An adequate psychological motive for their persistence in carrying on the controversy with Job over so many chapters is to be found in the dilemma into which his catastrophic disaster had placed them. If a man of such high reputation could suffer so devastating a misfortune, their own security was imperiled by the possibility that the same thing could happen to themselves. Their basic motive in attempting to elicit from Job a confession of sin was to establish their own sense of security. If in point of fact Job had been guilty of some grievous sin of which they public had not knowledge, his overwhelming disaster could be easily understood as the retribution of the righteous god. Failing to secure from him any such confession despite all their diligent efforts to compel from him an admission of guilt, they felt unable to return home relieved and reassured that calamity would be kept from their door if they only lived a good life (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 462-63).

21 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 268.

22 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 268.

23 Childs writes, The primary effect of the concluded dialogue is to register the failure of human wisdom in its ability to penetrate into the mystery of human suffering (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 536). Later he writes, Job argues from his personal conviction of his innocence which refused to be coerced by deductions from an application of traditional wisdom. Yet his own experience also fails to penetrate the darkness (Ibid.).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to the Book of Proverbs

Related Media

I. TITLE:

A. In Hebrew: hm)lv= yl@v=m! meaning “Proverbs of Solomon.” The term yl@v=m! means “parallel” or “similar” and thus represents a description by means of comparison1

B. In Greek: PAROIMIAI has the sense of “being like” or “similar” (see paroimi'a, paromoia'zw and paro'moio). These are clever sayings using similes and comparisons--proverbs

II. AUTHORS:

A. Solomon: Solomon, the son of David, was said to have written over three thousand proverbs (1 Ki 4:32). Many of them are found in the book of Proverbs:2

1. 1:1--9:18

2. 10:1--22:16

3. 25:1--29:27 (these were selected by a committee appointed under king Hezekiah (726-698 B.C.)

B. Wisemen: Perhaps these were the ones who attended Solomon (cf. 1 Ki 4:31; 12:6). Their units are two:

1. 22:17--24:22

2. 24:23-34

C. Agur son of Jakeh: We do not know who this was. This is found in 30:1-33

D. King Lemuel: He was a non-Israelite who may have lived in the area of Uz where people still believed in the true God. This is in 31:1-9 and perhaps 31:10-31.

III. DATE: It seems that Proverbs was written and then compiled sometime between the tenth and sixth centuries B.C.

A. Very Late Date (Fourth Century B.C. 350 B.C. or Later)

1. This is held by C. H. Toy in ICC.

2. Solomon was identified with all wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) as with the apocryphal book the Wisdom of Solomon
While pseudonyms were popular in the intertestamental period, this was not the case in pre-Hellenistic Israel. In addition it is probable that Solomon’s reputation came from real compositions of wisdom3

3. It is assumed that the pure monotheism in Proverbs reflects a postexilic origin since it was a late evolutionary development
The presupposition of an evolution of religion is not necessary since Israel’s religion was revealed from the days of the patriarchs and idolatry was always regarded as evil

4. Since Proverbs does not demonstrate “national” references, it must have been composed after the fall of the nation.
But the lack of national references is a part of the genre of literature known as wisdom literature and the multi-cultural nature setting of Israel.

5. Social customs and vices are from the time after the exile
But there is nothing in the customs or vices which require that they be limited to one particular time or another

6. The emphasis upon knowledge as a source for resolving problems is a Hellenistic approach to moral philosophy
This is a basic misunderstanding between Greek and Hebrew wisdom. Greek wisdom was concerned with speculation and cosmogony which was behind principles of the universe. Hebrew wisdom was interested in the revealed will of God (the Law) and the observable order which God placed into the universe.4

7. Proverbs was the product of a professional group of wise men who also put together Ecclesiastes, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus
But there must have been an earlier, classical model of written proverbial literature before a professional group of wise men could have arisen5

B. Moderately Late Date (Seventh-Sixth Centuries 600 B.C.):

1. This is held to by Driver, Norwack, and A.B. Davidson

2. The material ascribed to Solomon is identified with a later period of time:

a. 1--9 to the period just before the exile

b. 10--22 may have Solomonic roots, but reached its present form in the seventh century B.C.

3. The units attributed to the wisemen (22:17--24:34) are identified with the postexilic period

4. 25--29 is considered to be postexilic

5. 30--31 were added at a much later time

6. Some moderate critics place chapters 22--24 in an earlier period than chapters 1--9 and view the entire book as having been written no later than the time of Hezekiah

C. Early Date (Tenth Century to Sixth Century B.C.):

1. Much of the book was written during the time of Solomon (1--9; 10--22:6; [22:17--24:34]; 25--29:27)

2. There was a compilation of Solomon’s writings which occurred during the reign king Hezekiah (726-698 B.C.)

3. It is not possible to know when some of the material was written (30--31)6

4. Proverbs 22--24 were probably a source for the Egyptian work, The Wisdom of Amenemope which has been dated to from 1000 B.C. to the Persian and/or Greek periods7

D. Conclusion: Tenth to Sixth Century

1. Much of the material in Proverbs is old dating at least from the time of Solomon

2. Some of Proverbs was probably compiled as a canonical book at a later time (at least during the time of Hezekiah (726-698 B.C.)
Perhaps the placement of the two sections of anonymous sayings by the wisemen (22:17--24:22; and 24:23-34) suggests that they came from period between Solomon’s reign and the collection of Hezekiah’s scribes8

3. Proverbs 30--31 could have been added at a later time (the time of the exile?)

4. Albright wrote, “In a nutshell, my opinion with regard to the provenience and date of Proverbs is that its entire contents is probably pre-Exilic, but that much of the book was handed down orally until the fifth century B.C. when we know from Elephantine that Jews were interested in literature of a different kind.”9

IV. PURPOSES:

A. To enable the readers to learn and apply the fear of the Lord to their lives

B. To provide skill for living (successful living) from the two perimeters of natural order and God’s word

C. To know wisdom and instruction (1:2)

D. To receive teaching in wise dealing, righteousness, justice and equity (1:3)

E. To help the simple gain prudence and the youth gain knowledge and discretion (1:4)

F. To increase learning and to acquire skill in understanding (1:5)

G. To understand proverbs, parables, wise sayings, and riddles (1:6)

H. To learn the fear of the Lord (1:7)


1 Hill and Walton write, The Hebrew word for 'proverb' conveys a wide range of meanings, including the idea of comparison, a code of behavior, and the discovery of hidden truth. Essentially the book of Proverbs is a collection of comparisons based on observation and reflection that seeks to instruct people in 'right behavior' (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 286).

LaSor et al write, Some scholars connect masal with the root 'to rule,' to a proverb was originally a word spoken by a ruler and therefore filled with special power and meaning; see A Bentzen, Introduction 1:168 (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 547 n. 1). Some proverbs are not built upon comparisons. They are short, pithy sayings (Prov. 1--9; Job's speeches, 27:1; 29:1) or bywords (Deut. 28:37; Jer. 24:9; Ezek 14:8) or even taunt sons were the sufferer becomes the focus (cf. Isa. 14:4ff; Ibid.).

2 Cohen writes, A Rabbinic teaching asserts that the Israelite king wrote Song of Songs in his youth, Proverbs in middle age, and Ecclesiastes towards the end of his life (Midrash Shir ha-Shirim, i. I, § 10) (A. Cohen, Proverbs: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, xii).

3 Archer writes, Thus in Greek literature the existence of the later epic poetry falsely attributed to Homer by no means demonstrates that Homer never composed any epic poetry of his own .... (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 478).

4 Archer writes, Whereas Greek philosophy tended toward dialectical deduction from first principles arrived at by purely intellectual induction, Hebrew philosophy was more intuitive and analogical, endeavoring to interpret the moral order in the light of a personal, omniscient, and omnipotent God, who had revealed His will for ethical living (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 479).

5 Archer writes, Compare Jeremiah 18:18, which speaks of the wise men as a class of experts on a par with priests and prophets in the preexilic generation. There can be no question that wisdom literature had a very early origin in the history of Egypt, going back at least to Ipuwer in the Sixth Dynasty (ca. 2500 B.C.). It is also evident from 1 Kings 4:30 that there was a long tradition of pre-Solomonic sages in Israel, and it is quite unwarranted to hold that the tenth century was to early for this kind of literature to have arisen among the Hebrew people (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 480).

6 Hill and Walton write, Nothing is known of Agur and Lemuel of Massa. It seems likely they were members of the northern Arabian tribe of Massa, one of the sons of Ishmael (Gen. 25:14; 1 Chron. 1:30). The records of their 'counsel' are further examples of the universality of wisdom traditions in the ancient world. They also give evidence of the international character of Israelite wisdom. The Hebrew sage and scribe sought pleasing and truthful words of practical instruction, whether of Hebrew, Edomite (e.g., Job), or Arabian origin (e.g., Agur and Lemuel) (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 287).

7 See Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 481-82.

8 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 287.

9 In Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. North and D. Winton Thomas (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1960), 13. LaSor et al write, Prov. 25:1 makes clear that the book could not have been completed before Hezekiah's time (ca. 715-686). The last two chapters may well have been added during or shortly after the Exile (ca. 500). Most likely chs. 10--29 were edited during Hezekiah's time and the introductory and concluding chapters were added during the two following centuries. The fifth century is a reasonable date for the final editing, although most of the contents are much earlier, with most individual proverbs and even longer speeches stemming from long before the Exile (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 558; see also A. Cohen, Proverbs: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, xii).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to The Book of Ecclesiastes

Related Media

I. AN INTRODUCTION TO WISDOM AND POETIC LITERATURE

A. The Place of Wisdom Literature in the Bible

1. Hebrew Wisdom Literature was part of a larger corpus of material with Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite-Phoenician influences1

2. The Bible contains several different types of literature:

a. Narrative (Genesis, 1 and 2 Samuel, Ruth, Jonah, Nehemiah, etc.)

b. Legal (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc.)

c. Historical (1 and 2 Chronicles, etc.)

d. Poetic (Psalms; Song of Songs etc.)

e. Prophetic (Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.)

f. Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

g. Epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, etc.)

h. Apocalyptic (Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation)

3. The different kinds of literature serve different didactic functions:

a. The effects of the fall of mankind were pervasive:2

1) The fall effected Mankind’s supernatural relationships (Gen. 3:8,14-15,19)

a) The fall effected conflict with God (Gen. 3:8)

b) The fall effected conflict with the enemy (Gen. 3:14-15,19)

2) The Fall effected mankind’s natural relationships (Gen. 3:16-19)

a) The fall effected conflict with children 3:16a

b) The fall effected conflict between men and women 3:16b

c) The fall effected conflict in work (Gen. 3:17-19)

b. The Scriptures are designed to address Mankind’s need of salvation in all realms of his life (with God, with one another, and with the tasks of life)3

1) Legal Literature is a declaration of god’s will designed to mold the moral, spiritual, and ethical direction of the nation

2) Historical Literature is a revelation (record) of the sovereign work of God in History

3) Prophetic Literature is a declaration of the will of God in History in judgment of the nation’s historical dealings and in promise of God’s future blessings

4) Wisdom/Poetic Literature is practical direction for obtaining substantial wholeness out of the brokenness of natural life:

a) Job addresses Mankind’s wrestling with affliction which defies human explanation

b) Psalms are an expression of Mankind’s heart toward God in the varied nature of life: fears, doubts, tragedies, triumphs, joys, hopes.4

c) Song of Solomon is the outworking of love in marriage

d) Ecclesiastes affirms that meaning for life is not in life, but in the One who gives life

e) Proverbs provides skill at living life from the parameters of the Law and natural order5

4. Biblical literature is designed to appeal to the whole person: his mind and his heart!

B. The Design of Wisdom Literature6

1. Wisdom literature is concerned with the application of truth (from creation and the Law) to daily life and choices

2. The application of truth was to give one skill at life7 or even good common sense8 (Job 32:7; Prov. 1:7)

3. Wisdom literature applies truth through generalizations:

a. The author makes applicational generalizations in a specific area

b. The author’s generalizations are rarely intended to have an unlimited scope

c. The task in interpreting wisdom literature is to recognize the specific scope of the author and thus applying the truth in that specific scope

d. The generalizations are stated in the form of maxims

1) Maxims are statements of truth which are always true, but whose scope is not intended to be an exhaustive or comprehensive statement of truth concerning a subject

2) Maxims state a truth from one perspective without intending to say all that there is to say about that subject

4. Examples of the application of truths through generalizations:9

a. Proverbs consists of pithy maxims to be applied properly to life10. The limits of the author’s scope of application can be discerned through collecting many proverbs on a given subject

b. Job is the application of maxims concerning the nature of evil and punitive suffering. The value of maxims is critiqued as a final guide in suffering. God becomes the only source of meaning in suffering as he brings good for his own out of evil for his own good purposes

c. Ecclesiastes is the search for the ultimate maxim to explain the nature of life. However, life is not found in the storehouse of wisdom, but is a gift from God given to be used in a responsible, yet rewarding fashion11

d. Song of Songs is more poetic literature rather than wisdom in that it celebrates the greatest gift of human life--love! Nevertheless, love is presented in a full expression as that which unifies two into one with purity and honor for each person

e. Psalms are also closer to poetry than to wisdom literature. Nevertheless, they express the one sided expression of the heart of man towards God12 as he expresses fear, sorrow, despair, hope, praise, and skill at life (wisdom psalms, 1, 27, 32, 34, 37, 49, 73, 112, 127--128, 133)

C. The Literary13 Character of Hebrew Poetry/Wisdom

1. Rhythm of Thought
The genius of Hebrew poetry is in the realm of thought rhyme and the key to thought rhyme is in the technique of parallelism (the correspondence of one thought with another)14

a. Synonymous parallelism exactly balances the thoughts or meanings in two lines of poetry by saying the same thing twice in nearly the same way (Ps. 3:1; 7:16; 2:4)

b. Synthetic and Climatic parallelism further takes up and develops a through begun in the first line by adding a little more to enrich one’s thinking (Ps. 95:3; 1:1). Occasionally they expansion is expressed in a tiered structure in which each line repeats the first with the exception of the last term/phrase where a new one is added (Ps. 29:1)

c. Emblematic parallelism uses images to convey the poetic meaning. While one line conveys the main point in a direct fashion, the second line illuminates it by an image. There is a movement from point to picture (Ps. 23:1,2,4; 103:13; 113:5,6; 57:1)

d. Antithetical parallelism balances the thoughts or ideas within the line pairs by stating truth in the first line in an opposing or negative way by introducing a contrast (Ps. 1:6; 57:6)

e. Chiastic or Inverted parallelism contraposes or alternates the words or phrases in consecutive lines (Ps. 51:3; Isa. 11:13)

2. Rhythm of Sound (in Hebrew)

a. Acrostic Poems are written so that the initial letters of consecutive lines form an alphabet, word, or phrase (Ps. 9; 10; 25; 34; 37; 11; 112; 119; 145; Prov. 31:10-31; Lam. 1; 2; 3; 4; Nahum 1:2-20). This was a mnemonic tool (memory device) conveying ideas of order, progression, and completeness.

b. Alliteration is the consonance of sounds at the beginning of words or syllables (Ps. 122:6)

c. Assonance is correspondence of vowels sounds, often at the end of words in order to emphasize an idea, theme, or tone (Ps. 119:29)

d. Paronomasia is a word play through the repetition of words of similar sound, but not necessarily meaning in order to heighten the impact of the message (Gen. 32:22-24)

e. Onomatopoeia is the use of words that sound like what they describe (Ruth 1:19)

f. Ellipsis is the omission of a word or words that would complete a given parallel construction (Ps. 115:4-7)

g. Inclusio is the repetition of words or phrases by which the poet returns to the point from which he began (Ps. 118:1,29)

3. Wisdom Speech Forms15

a. The Parable is a “warning speech” (Prov. 6:20-35; 2 Sam. 12:1-4)

b. The Precept is an authoritative instruction or regulation for behavior connecting wisdom with the moral codes of the Law (Prov. 3:27)

c. The Riddle is a puzzling question stated as a problem calling for mental acumen to solve it (Judg. 14:14)

d. The Fable is a brief tale embracing a moral truth using people, animals, or inanimate objects as characters (Judg. 9:7-20)

e. The Wise Saying is a generalization about the way of wisdom based on the insight of experience or a folk expression of plain common sense (Prov. 18:18)

f. The Numerical Proverb culminates numerical progression (Prov. 6:16-19; 30:18-31)

g. Rhetorical Questions (Prov. 5:16; 8:1), Allegory Through Personification (Prov. 8--9; Eccl. 12:1-8), Satire and Irony (Prov. 11:22; Eccl. 5:13-17)

D. The Canonical Order of the Wisdom and Poetic Books

1. The Hebrew Scriptures were probably originally canonized into a two-fold division: the Law and the Prophets16

2. By around the second century B.C.17 a three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures arose: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings18

a. The three-fold division included the same books as the two-fold division

b. There are several possible reasons for a three-fold division:19

1) A distinction was made between books which were written by men who held the prophetic office, and men who only had the prophetic gift

2) Some at a later date may have felt that those books which were not written by “prophets” were not fully canonical

3) A more practical purpose was served by the topical and festal20 significance rather than by the two-fold categories

3. Within the category of the Sacred Writings, the books of Psalms, Proverbs and Job were regarded by the Jews as specifically poetical in nature, and were described by the mnemonic title “The Book of Truth”21

4. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (The Septuagint or LXX c. 280-150 B.C.) divided the Old Testament according to subject matter which is the basis of the modern four-fold classification of the: five books of Law, twelve books of History, five books of Poetry, and seventeen books of Prophecy22

II. INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES

A. Title: Qohelet (The Speaker [in an Assembly])

1. In Hebrew the book is titled “Qohelet” ( tl#h#q) ):

a. This has been understood to be a proper name, and thus not translated but transliterated

b. This is probably a title rather than a proper name due to the definite article which is used with the term in 12:8, “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher ( tl#h#oQh^ )

2. In the LXX titled “Ecclesiastes” ( jEkklhsiasth):

a. This describes “one who calls an assembly”23

b. Therefore, many English versions interpret “Qohelet” in terms of the role that he played with the assembly:

1) “The Teacher” (NIV)

2) “The Preacher” (KJV/NASV)

3) “The Leader of the Assembly” (NIV marg)

B. Authorship: Most Probably Solomon the son of David

1. External Evidence: Although many critical scholars argue for a late date of Ecclesiasties, their evidence is not conclusive and an earlier Solomonic date is supportable in line with the general opinion before the seventeenth century

a. Until the rise of literary and historical criticism during the Enlightenment (17th century) Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes was generally accepted24

1) The Jews considered Ecclesiastes to be inspired

a) It was included in the Mishnah and the Talmud25

b) It was included in the LXX

c) It was not doubted by Josephus

2) It was approved in the early Christian era:

a) It was not doubted by the translation of Aquila

b) It was not doubted by the translation of Symmachus

c) It was not doubted by the translation of Theodotion

d) It was included in the catalog of Melito, bishop of Sardis (c. AD 170)

b. Questions of authorship arose due to linguistic discussions:

1) Hebrew Style: Some believed that the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes was closer in style to that of the Mishnah (AD 200) than Solomon’s age (BC 951-921)

2) Loan Words: Aramaic and Persian words led scholars to date the work after Solomon, but some recent studies show that some of these features exist in Canaanite-Phoenician literature of the pre-Solomonic era26

3) Autobiographical References: Autobiographical references are considered to be literary devices to validate the author’s arguments as in the case of the pseudepigraphical Wisdom of Solomon (ca. 150-50 BC), but this is not a necessary conclusion for the following reasons:

a) Falsehood: If the biographical references are not true, then it is unlikely that the believing community (which was closer to the time of composition) would have accepted Ecclesiasties into the canon as part of inspired truth

b) Although some argue that the verb “was” (yt!yy]h( ) means “I ... was [and am no longer] king.” However, the verb could be translated as follows: “I ... have been [and still am] king.” See the NASB

c) The reference to “all who were over Jerusalem before me” may not only refer to Israelite rulers (e.g., David only), but to the non-Israelite rulers before David27

4) Linguistic Response: Recent studies demonstrate that some of the characteristics of the Hebrew in Ecclesiasties which were considered to be Aramaic and/or late may be found in Canaanite-Phoenician literature of a pre-Solomonic era28

5) Social and Political Conditions: Although some argue that the social and political conditions of Ecclesiasties29 are descriptive of the later time periods when the Jews were under Persian or Greek rule, they could also be descriptive of the end of Solomon’s rule when he was so harsh (1 Ki. 12:4, 9-11)

2. Internal Evidence: Although not conclusive, the internal evidence leans in the direction of Solomon:

a. The author identifies himself as David’s Son who is a King over Israel in Jerusalem:

1) The author identifies himself as the “Son of David” (1:1)

2) The author identifies himself as a “King in Jerusalem” (1:1)

3) The author identifies himself as a “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (1:12)

b. The author identifies himself with qualities which would have been true of David’s son, Solomon:30

1) He has “magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before” him 1:16

2) He describes himself as a builder of great projects 2:4-6

3) He describes himself as possessing many slaves (2:7), herds of sheep and cattle (2:7), and great wealth (2:8)

4) He claimed to be greater than all who lived in Jerusalem before him 2:9

C. Date: Probably around 935 BC

1. Late Date: Many who hold to a late date due to linguistic concerns date the book as late as the postexilic period (c. 530-250 BC),31 but some32 date the book during the late Persian period (c. 450-350 BC)

2. If one holds to Solomonic authorship, than the date is between 970-931 BC

3. Within the span of Solomonic kingship it is more likely that this book was written toward the end of his life than at an earlier time; Kaiser writes,
“Therefore, given the Solomonic authorship of the book, it will be best placed not before his apostasy, for the questions and sins of Ecclesiastes did not trouble him then, nor during his years of rebellion, for then he had no occasion to use the language of spiritual things. Ecclesiastes is best placed after his apostasy, when both his recent turmoil and repentance were still fresh in his mind33

D. The Canonical Use of Ecclesiastes34

1. See “I” “D” in the outline above

2. Ecclesiastes was read on the third day of the Feast of Tabernacles to emphasize joy over man’s place in God’s good creation35

E. A Comparison of Ecclesiastes with other ANE Texts

1. The specific kind of wisdom literature to which Ecclesiastes is akin is “pessimism literature”36

2. “An example of the essential difference between Mesopotamian “pessimism literature” and that of Israel may be found in the first millennium Babylonian “Dialogue of Pessimism” which concludes a similar struggle as Solomon’s in Ecclesiastes with absolute despair:
“Slave, listen to me,” “Yes, master, yes.” “Then what is good?” “To have my neck and yours broken and to be thrown into the river. Who is so tall that he can reach to the heavens? Who is so broad that he can encompass the underworld?” “No, servant, I will kill you and let you go first.” “Then (I swear that) my master will not outlive me by even three days”37

F. The Unity and Structure of the Book

1. Some have viewed Ecclesiasties as a combination of the contradictory views of three men (a skeptic, a writer of wisdom, and a believer), but this has largely been abandoned38

2. Some see the book of Ecclesiasties as having a thematic unity, but no real structural unity or argument; rather, it is viewed as a loose collection of wisdom sayings similar to the book of Proverbs39

3. Some trace the argument of the book through rhetorical criticism involving the repetition of set formulas dividing the book into two main divisions with an introduction and conclusion added on:40

a. Introduction: The Futility of All Human Endeavor 1:1-11

b. The Futility of Human Achievement Empirically Demonstrated 1:12--6:9

c. The Limitations of Human Wisdom Empirically Demonstrated 6:10--11:6

d. Conclusion: Life Joyously and Responsibly in the Fear of God 11:7--12:14

4. Others trace the argument of the book into four parts around the formal refrain “to eat and drink and to realize the benefit of one’s labor” is all a gift from God” (2:24-26; 5:18-20; 8:15-17; 11:7-10)41

5. Others trace the argument of the book through a combination of themes and literary structure42

G. The Purposes of Ecclesiastes

1. To reach unbelievers through a “cultural apologetic” so that they might straighten out their thinking, acting, values and prepare for their eternal destiny43

2. To explain for unbelievers and believers that meaning in life is not to be found in life (which is unintelligible and hostile--meaningless, vanity), but in the God who gives life

3. To emphasize the central theme that an understanding of life begins with the fear of God44

4. To “set a new standard of godliness for potential proselytes and Gentiles in general in a society and culture filled with every form of idolatry, indecency, and injustice known to man”45


1 To say that Hebrew Wisdom Literature was similar to some of the writings of its neighbors does not mean that there were not differences--especially in its development with respect to one God. Nevertheless, several factors were similar: (1) it was essentially practical, (2) it was attributed to God alone, (3) it was relevant to all parts of life (see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 1004-1009; Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 248-252; La Sor et al, Old, pp. 534-542; Pritchard, ANET, pp. 589-607).

2 Much of what follows is from S. Craig Glickman, class notes of student in 903 Soteriology, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1981.

3 Much of what follows was adapted from Glickman, Ibid., Elliott E. Johnson, class notes of student in 303 Old Testament History II and Poetry, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1981; Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction, pp. 106-132.

Geisler affirms that Legal literature provided the moral life of the people, Historical literature provided the political life of the people, and Poetical literature provided the spiritual experiences of the people (A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, p. 179). While there is some truth to this, the descriptions do not fully express the development of the different types of literature.

4 The wisdom aspect throughout the Psalms is the concept that the righteous will be vindicated and the wicked will suffer (Ps. 1).

5 See the discussion by La Sor et al, Old, p. 545.

6 Elliott E. Johnson, Principle of Recognition: Chapter IV (unpublished class notes in 315 Advanced Hermeneutics, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1983), pp. 55-56.

7 The Hebrew term hmkh was generically used to describe the skill which one might have with craftsmanship (Ex. 31:1-11), architectural ability (1 Ki. 5:9-18) or, handiwork (1 Ki. 7:14; Isa. 44:9-17).

The skill that the fear of the Lord gives is the ability to make good choices about life (Prov. 1:1-7).

8 R. K. Harrison writes, worldly wisdom, through less elevated in nature, was different only in degree and not in kind from divine wisdom. The whole of life was thus connoted in terms of religious experience, and wisdom was held to be relevant at all points of existence (Introduction, p. 1008).

9 Two broad categories exist to define wisdom literature: (1) Proverbial wisdom--short, pity sayings which state rules for personal happiness and welfare [e.g., Proverbs], and (2) Contemplative or Speculative wisdom--monologues, dialogues, or essays which delve into basic problems of human existence such as meaning in life, or suffering [e.g., Ecclesiastes and Job]; see La Sor et al, Old, pp. 533-542.

10 These are concrete, down-to-earth statements rather than broad, philosophical evaluations (cf. Prov. 12:4; 11:2; 17:10); La Sor et al offer an enjoyable discussion of this characteristic (Old, pp. 537-538).

11 An example of the essential difference between Mesopotamian wisdom literature, and that of Israel may be found in the first millennium Babylonian Dialogue of Pessimism which concludes a similar struggle as Solomon's in Ecclesiastes with absolute despair:

Slave, listen to me, Yes, master, yes. Then what is good? To have my neck and yours broken and to be thrown into the river. Who is so tall that he can reach to the heavens? Who is so broad that he can encompass the underworld? No, servant, I will kill you and let you go first. Then (I swear that) my master will not outlive me by even three days (Pritchard, ANET, p. 601).

How much different is this conclusion than that of the modern existentialist?

12 As Ross writes, The Psalms are the inspired responses of human hearts to God's revelation of Himself in law, history, and prophecy (Psalms BKC, p. 779).

13 The language of the Psalms is concentrated when compared with prose. The concentration occurs through the use of images, symbols, figures, emotive vocabulary, and multiple meanings (Ross, Psalms, BKC, p. 780). The figurative language, is an instrument for conveying densely patterned meanings, and sometimes contradictory meanings, that are not readily conveyable through other kinds of discourse (Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 113).

The word pictures enable the reader to feel much of what the poet did when he wrote the lines. This capacity to imagine that which one has not experienced is probably tied to the image of God (Who was able to imagine all possible creations before he made this one). Therefore, one must be sensitive to figurative language in order to capture the emotional meanings of the poetry.

14 Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 252-253; Kidner, Psalms 1-72, pp. 1-4; R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 965-972; Ryken, Words of Delight, pp. 180-185.

15 Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 257-258; See also Ryken, Words of Delight, pp. 159-185, 313-340.

16 The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which Moses' Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures, (2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the books [9:2], and (4) the recognition of the Former prophetic books by the Latter (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, pp. 148-161).

17 Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke 24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).

18 The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books--Psalms, Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books--Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of 22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 18-19).

19 Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of compositions--Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings (c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above). See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151.

This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write, Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p. 508-509).

20 Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in mourning for the destruction of Solomon's temple), Ecclesiastes (third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).

21 The word truth ( tma) was composed of the initial letters of each book--a ( boya, Job), m (ylvm, Proverbs), and t ( <ylht, Praises or Psalms) see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, p. 965.

22 Law = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

History = Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther

Poetry = Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

Prophets/Major = Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel

Prophets/Minor = Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

For a more extensive overview see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 17-25.

23 Kaiser would argue that the feminine participle actually describes the act of gathering people together rather than one who gathers people together (Ecclesiastes, pp. 24-25).

24 Luther did reject Solomonic authorship in his Tischreden (Table-Talk) affirming that the book had not reached us in its completed form and that Sirach rather than Solomon had been its author (see K & D 6:190).

25 Kaiser notes the following, The often repeated charge that the Talmud and Midrashim were ambivalent about Ecclesiastes' place in the canon is an overstatement. If the charge is that there were some serious questions about how to interpret Ecclesiastes, the answer is that the problem was not confined to Qoheleth; consider Song of Solomon, Proverbs, and certain Psalms. Further, those objections were all from the school of Shammai, whose rules of interpretation were hotly contested by the school of Hillel. Shammai was in fact overruled by the seventy elders, and so the Synagogue had settled the issue. What is more, the complaint this school raised that the words of Qoheleth contradict one another was only an apparent difficulty that was resolved just as alleged internal contradictions of the same kind in Proverbs were resolved: by careful exegesis of the text.

26 Mitchell Dahood, Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth, Biblica 33 (1952): 201-202.

27 Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18), Adonizedic (Josh. 10:1), Araunah (2 Sam. 24:23).

28 Donald R. Glenn, Ecclesiastes, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), p. 975. Also Gleason L. Archer has summarized these features and argues that the Hebrew in Ecclesiastes is unique to any other Hebrew from any other period (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975] s.v. Ecclesiastes, 2:184-187. See also Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, edited by D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), p. 19. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Ecclesiastes: Total Life (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), p. 28.

29 These would include oppression (4:1; 8:9), injustice (5:8), and corrupt government (5:8-9; 10:16-20).

30 Hill and Walton recognize that the writer intends for the reader to think of Solomon's experiences, but still come to the conclusion that Solomonic authorship is doubtful (A Survey, p. 293. One wonders how they justify the deception of the author as a part of Scripture.

31 Fragments of Ecclesiastes found at Qumran rule out a date later than 150 BC.

32 Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Leupold, and E. J. Young.

33 Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, pp. 30-31. See also 1 Kings 11. See also Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 20c.

34 For a more detailed discussion of canonicity see Eaton, Ecclesiastes, pp. 24-28.

35 See Kaiser's discussion in Ecclesiastes, pp. 41-42.

36 Eaton, Ecclesiastes, pp. 34-36. Pritchard, ANET, pp. 407-410, 423-424, 441-444, 467.

37 Pritchard, ANET, p. 601. How much different is this conclusion than that of the modern existentialist?

38 Glenn, Ecclesiastes, BKC, p. 978.

39 See the discussion by Eaton, Ecclesiastes, pp. 48-51.

40 Glenn, Ecclesiastes, BKC, p. 978.

41 This view does not have a monolithic expression (see Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, pp. 20-24; Glenn, Ecclesiastes, BKC, p. 978.

42 See Hill and Walton, A Survey, pp. 295-297, and the argument of this writer which follows below.

43 Kaiser, Ecclesiasties, pp. 31-32. See Deuteronomy 4:6-8; 1 Ki. 10:1.

44 See Deuteronomy 4:105:29; 6:2,13,24; 8:6; 10:12,20; 13:4; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12-13.

45 Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, p. 37.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

The &#8216;Daily’ Emphasis of Scripture

Related Media

Verses Using “Daily”

Psalm 68:19. God is committed to our care, deliverance, and direction (1 Pet. 5:6-7). He is our burden bearer, but our need is to learn to take our burdens to the Lord daily (Pr. 8:34) in humble submission to His sovereign purposes.

Proverbs 8:34. Blessing is promised to those who listen, but the listening that leads to blessing is a daily matter of waiting on the Lord as our Master and Provider.

Matthew 6:11. It shows our need of God’s sustenance is daily as is also our need of prayer for God’s supply.

Luke 9:23. Following the Lord is a daily responsibility which involves the subordination of my desires and will to His. For this to take place effectively, we need daily time with Him, waiting at His throne.

Acts 17:11. This verse gives God’s estimate of those who daily examine the Word, and shows the mindset or attitude that is needed for effective time with God: eagerness to see what He has said in His Word. Compare the following verses—2 Cor 8:11-12; 2 Cor. 8:19; 2 Cor. 9:2. Daily is stressed in Acts 17:11 of the Jews in Berea who, under the influence and preparation of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of Paul and Silas, were ready and eager to daily dig into the Scriptures. “Readiness” refers to the idea of enthusiasm and devoted zeal which is the result of some kind of preparation which produces the readiness or willingness and this in turn promotes what we do.

1 Corinthians 15:31. Compare the context of vs. 32 and our motives. Could there be a connection between time alone with the Lord daily and dying daily to selfish motives and self-dependent living, etc.?

Verses Using “Today”

Psalm 95:7-9. Do you see any connection with verses 7 and following and verses 1-6? Is there a connection between God as our Shepherd, hearing His voice, and the hardening of the heart? Is verse 9 the result of a hardened heart? How do we test God?

Hebrews 3:7, 13, 15 and Hebrews 4:7. What is the context in which the author of Hebrews quotes the Old Testament passage?

James 4:13. What are the implications of this verse to one’s daily time with the Lord? We all make daily decisions for which we need God’s guidance and submission to His will. If I am not daily taking time to get alone with the Lord for fellowship so I can also take the issues of my life to Him, then I may become guilty of presuming on the Lord and seeking to run my own life independently of Him. Compare verses 14-17.

Verses Using “In the Morning”

Psalm 5:3. This verse expresses David’s resolve, based on his understanding of his own insufficiency, to spend time with God to fortify his mind, heart, and will.

Psalm 55:17. This verse shows time with God is not just a morning affair (1 Thess. 5:17). It shows that David was resolved to take his burdens to the Lord. We should feel free to express our feelings to God rather than repress or suppress our emotions. He is a father kind of God who knows our frame, that we are dust, and cares for us a father does his children. We should always feel free to express our pain to the Lord. We see this pattern often in the Psalms, but when it comes to expressing our feelings to people, the principles and purposes of Scripture should control the way our feelings are expressed. We should express them in a timely manner, in love, and with a view to the edification of those involved (Pro. 15:23; 25:11-13; Eph. 4:29).

Psalm 143:8. Note the categories or aspects involved in our daily time with the Lord—worship in praise, thanksgiving and acknowledgment of God’s grace and faithfulness, prayer for illumination, study of the Word, prayer for help.

Psalm 88:13; Psalm 92:2; Psalm 119:62

Isaiah 50:4. “The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of disciples, That I may know how to sustain the weary one with a word. He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear to listen as a disciple.” The NIV reads, “an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary,” and the KJV has “the tongue of the learned, that I might know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary.”

What are some of the cause and effect relationships that we can learn from this passage in our daily relationship with the Lord and our purpose for life? (a) The Lord God must be the ultimate source of instruction. This clearly stresses the need of intimacy with the Lord, of firsthand listening (cf. Psa. 119:102). (b) Daily intimacy with God draws the heart closer to God and imparts a ministering heart. We should note the unselfish, other-oriented nature of this verse and the daily time with God. (c) We see in this the need of consistency, morning by morning. (d) We also see in this the concept of a listening ear. Today, we are too busy to really take time to hear.

Lamentations 3:23. Note the context here fore and aft. What is new every morning? How are they made new? Waiting on the Lord and seeking Him as our portion every morning.

Mark 1:35. Who departed to a lonely place? When did He depart? Under what conditions? If He felt the need for this, how much more shouldn’t we?

Verses on Strength and
Liberty Through Daily Fellowship

Psalm 119:45, 104-105, 114, 127-128, 133

Verses on Inclining
the Heart Toward the Lord

Since the dailies are a means to inclining one’s heart to God, the following are also helpful verses on which to meditate:

Psalm 119:36, 112; 141:4
Proverbs 2:2; 4:2; 5:1; 22:17
Isaiah 55:3
Jeremiah 7:24, 26 11:8; 17:23
Hebrews 4:16
James 4:8.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Bible Study Methods

Dealing with Temptation

Related Media

Some Thoughts for Further Meditation on Matthew 4:4

Introduction

Few things in the Christian life are as exciting as memorizing Scripture. It has provided me with hours of meditation and fuel for meaningful prayer; it has shaped my relationship and walk with God. I'm excited that you have started to memorize Scripture with a view to meditating on its truth so that you too can experience the power of a life transformed by the Lord.

If you have started the BSF Memory Program you have probably already memorized Matthew 4:4 (the first verse in the Program) and have given it lots of careful and creative thinking. If you have done this, then I hope the following brief comments will stimulate you even more. If, on the other hand you have not yet committed Matthew 4:4 to memory and meditated on it, I encourage you to go ahead and do it now. You'll love it!!! Spend some time thinking about it and then come and read the following comments on the verse. Remember, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can substitute for your own memory and meditation. I am in no way discouraging the reading of other people (otherwise I would not have taken the time to write this), but only suggesting that your reading of the Bible come first.

A Note On Meditation

Meditation is the process of mulling around in your mind a passage of Scripture until its meaning becomes clear and one can see how it applies to him or her. One helpful tip I received a long time ago involves the practice of reading the verse(s) through several times, each time emphasizing a different word. This will help you see things you’ve never seen before and put the passage together better than you had previous. And what’s equally important, is that it is during this time of meditation that the Holy Spirit often leads us in the particular application of Scripture He desires.

Matthew 4:4
and the Example of Jesus

Let's turn our attention now to Matthew 4:4 where we can learn literally a ton about our Savior and how he handled temptation with the Word of God. We will begin, as we always should, attempting to place the passage under study in its context. Once we can see how it relates to what has come before as well as what comes after, we will focus on the passage itself.

The Context of the Passage

Matthew has already told us by virtue of Jesus’ genealogy (1:1-17) that he is the Messiah who will bring to realization all that was promised in the OT. Matthew connects Jesus to two prominent OT figures who represent two important covenants and the future hope of the nation of Israel and indeed the entire world. First, Jesus is related to Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant (Matt 1:1) with the inference that he is the one who will fulfill the promises made to the patriarch (see Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-21). The Abrahamic covenant was further expanded many years later in the covenant given to David (see 2 Samuel 7:12-16). Thus Matthew’s connecting Jesus with David in 1:1 is to indicate that Jesus as Messiah will fulfill the promises made to David. Jesus is to be a king! This Matthew makes clear through the in 2:2: “Where is he who is to be born king of the Jews?”

Finally Jesus was born during difficult circumstances. King Herod was quite agitated by the news of another king. So feeling extremely threatened (by a child!!) he reacted in an attempt to have Jesus killed. Instead, he murdered some male children under two years old (probably around 10-15 boys). After Mary and Joseph escaped to Egypt they returned and ultimately ended up in Nazareth. Now, the important thing to realize about these events (i.e., his genealogy, birth, escape, return and settling down) is that they happened in accordance with what the OT had anticipated would happen. Thus the Word of God is playing a central role right from the beginning of Matthew’s story and as we shall see it plays a central role in the temptations as well. To review: First, Jesus’ genealogy is connected to significant OT Scriptures. Second, his birth is said to be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Matt 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14). Third, the place of his birth was foretold in the OT (Matt 2:5, 6 and Micah 5:2). Jesus’ coming out of Egypt was the fulfillment of OT Scripture (Matt 1:15 and Hosea 11:1). Fourth, even Herod’s slaughter of the children is according to the OT (Matt 1:18 and Jeremiah 31:15). Fifth, Jesus settling down in Nazareth after his return from Egypt is also said to fulfill the OT prophets.

Following Jesus’ return to Nazareth, Matthew records for us the ministry of John the Baptist which is, of course, according to Scripture—Isaiah 40:3. While there are differences of opinion among scholars as to why Jesus felt the need to be baptized—and the precise meaning of to fulfill all righteousness in 3:15—it is perhaps best to see the passage as communicating the idea that Jesus thoroughly identified himself with the nation of Israel and the godly remnant who had obediently received John’s baptism. The reference in 3:17 is key to the meaning of the temptations in 4:1-11. In this text Matthew brings together two passages of Scripture, namely, Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1. Brought together in this way they may be said to refer to Jesus as the Suffering Servant who accomplishes God’s will and ultimately reigns but does so only after suffering first. The temptation account, then, in the following verses comes right on the heals of God declaring to Jesus that he was his Son whom He loved. It is after the temptation account that Jesus, having just defeated the Devil, goes into Galilee to begin his ministry of healing people and preaching the gospel—a ministry that ultimately leads to suffering and death on a cross before resurrection and glory. Now that we have some understanding of the context, let’s look at the temptation account now and in particular the first temptation and Jesus’ use of Deuteronomy 8:3 in Matthew 4:4.

The Passage Itself

We must first notice that it was the Spirit who led Jesus into a place where he could be tempted, though God himself was using it only as a test (4:1). If Jesus were to be able to stand in the place of the nation of Israel and indeed the human race as a whole, he had to be victorious where we have failed; he must withstand the temptations of the Devil and never succumb, otherwise he would be disqualified as Messiah and Savior.

Notice that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to fast for forty days and forty nights (probably recalling by way of parallelism Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness, where she grumbled at God because of the lack of food; see Deut 8:2) and that it was when Jesus was at his weakest that the Devil came to him to tempt him. It is a safe thing to assume that the Devil will attack us when we’re at our weakest and in the area that we’re most vulnerable. In this case, it was a temptation regarding hunger and food.

Now, some commentators think that since the Devil said to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God” he was trying to get Jesus to doubt what God had just told him at his baptism, namely, “This is my Son, whom I love.” But the first two temptations themselves (vv. 3 and 6) seem to argue against this interpretation. It seems that the Devil, the Tempter as Matthew calls him in 4:3, assumes that Jesus believes He is the Son of God so he tries another trick. He tempts Jesus to use his Sonship in an ungodly, sinful way. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with turning stones into bread unless it is not God’s will. And this is the case here. The Devil is trying to get Jesus to exercise his powers of Messianic Sonship (cf. 3:17) apart from the will of the Father. This would be sin. We must also recognize that underlying this temptation, and in fact fueling it, is a view of God similar to the one the Devil sold Adam and Eve. The Devil is, in effect, trying to teach Christ that God cannot be trusted to meet his needs, that he doesn’t care and that if He wants to save His life he had better act now (In the Devil’s definition, life is basically physical [cf. “bread alone” in Jesus’ response], not spiritual communion with and obedience to God.). In essence God is not good and cannot be trusted. This is one of the litany of lies that Eve bought into when the Devil had convinced her that God was withholding from her by not allowing her to eat from the tree (see Genesis 3:4-5).

Well, we know that Jesus responded to the Devil with Scripture which was properly interpreted. His use of “it is written” (4:4) indicates a firm commitment to the written word of God and its finality as the authority for a life lived in obedience to God. He believed Deuteronomy 8:3 (as he did the rest of Scripture)! Jesus does not deny that man has physical needs, but only that therein does not lay the totality of one’s life. Thus, Jesus teaches us that when God takes us through times of testing it is better to trust him and hold up under it (1 Cor 10:13) than it is to devise a sinful strategy to get out from under God’s appointed trials (see James 1:2-8). We can only do this if we believe that God is good and has our best interests at heart. If we deny this, we will not be able to have any kind of relationship with him in the midst of difficult times. Now that is not to say that we won’t struggle with these issues, but we must draw near to God and ask for grace to help us in our time of need (see Hebrews 4:14-16). So Jesus is a great model for us when we face temptations. If we have a willing and obedient heart (as He did) and have committed the Word of God to memory (as He did), God can show us the path to follow. This is why Scripture memory is so important. Scripture stored up in our heart helps us to see particular temptations for what they really are and gives us the strength to overcome them as the Spirit marries the memorized Word to our consciences and delivers us from evil (cf. Galatians 1:4).

Related Topics: Temptation

An Introduction to the Song of Songs

Related Media

I. TITLE:

A. Hebrew: In MT the book is called <yr!yV!h^ ryv! from the first words of the book (“The song of Songs which is by Solomon” or “The Best of Songs ...”).

B. Greek: In The LXX the book is called ASMA (the Song) from the first words of the book (“The Song of songs, which is Solomon’s”).

C. In the Latin Vulgate the Book is Titled Canticum Canticorum which is “Song of Songs.” It is from the Latin that the title Canticles is derived.

II. AUTHOR: Solomon

A. Internal Evidence:

1. The book is ascribed to Solomon with the hm=)Ov=l! (as with the Davidic psalms)1 1:1

2. Six other verses in the book refer to Solomon by name (1;5; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11-12)

3. The writer is referred to as the “king” in 1:4, 12; 3:9, 11; 7:5

4. There is considerable similarity between vocabulary and syntax between Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes which was also by Solomon (see introductory notes on Ecclesiastes2

5. The author’s correspondence with natural history corresponds to the report about him in 1 Kings 4:33 (cf. Song of Solomon 1:14; 2:1; twenty-one varieties of plant life, fifteen species of animals, his interest in cavalry [1:9; cf. 1 Ki 10:28])

6. The book speaks of royal luxury and abundance which Solomon would have enjoyed (1:12, 13; 3:6, 9; and imported goods such as cosmetic powders, silver, gold, purple, ivory, and beryl, his expensive carriage [3:7-10], his royal chariots [6:12])

7. The geographical references favor a date prior to 930 B.C.
Archer writes, “The author mentions quite indiscriminately localities to be found in both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms: Engedi, Hermon, Carmel, Lebanon, Heshbon, and Jerusalem. These are spoken of as if they all belonged to the same political realm. Note that Tirzah is mentioned as a city of particular glory and beauty, and that too in the same breath with Jerusalem itself (6:4). If this had been written after the time when Tirzah was chosen as the earliest capital of the Northern Kingdom in rejection of the authority of the dynasty of David, it is scarcely conceivable that it would have been referred to in such favorable terms. On the other hand, it is highly significant that Samaria, the city founded by Omri sometime between 885 and 874, is never mentioned in the Song of Solomon”
Judging from internal evidence, then, the author was totally unaware of any division of the Hebrew monarchy into North and South. This can only be reconciled with a date of composition in the tenth century, prior to 931 B.C. Even after the return from exile, no Jew of the province of Judea would have referred so indiscriminately to prominent localities in the non-Jewish areas of Palestine which were by this time under Gentile or Samaritan overlordship. It is true that this whole area was reunited under the rule of the Hasmonean kings, John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jamnaeus, but the evidence of the Qumran fragments from Cave IV indicates that Canticles was already in written form at least as early as the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt in 168 B.C.3

B. External Evidence:

1. Solomonic authorship has been the unified tradition of the Christian church until modern times

2. Recently Delitzsch, Raven, Steimmueller, and Young have all held to Solomonic authorship4

III. DATE: Tenth Century B.C. (971-931 B.C.)

A. Because many scholars deny Solomonic authorship of the book, they date it considerably later than the tenth century B.C.

B. Some date it as preexilic--before 600 B.C. with King Hezekiah as the king of Judah (cf. Prov 25:1; cf. 2 Chron 32:27-29)

1. R. Smith

2. R. Driver

3. Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 300.

C. Some date it as postexilic or even Hellenistic

1. Kuenen, Cornill, Cheyne, Budde, Kautzsch, Eissfeldt

2. Baumgartner dates the book as late third century B.C.

D. Late dates are primarily supported for linguistic reasons:

1. The use of se- instead of aser as a relative pronoun. But this was also used in Ecclesiastes, the song of Deborah (Judges 5), elsewhere in Judges, Job 19:29; 2 Kings 6:11, once in Jonah, in Lamentations, and in various psalms.
It may have been an acceptable substitute for aser in poetic writings

2. The presence of Aramaisms is taken to support a postexilic authorship. But they may have been brought to the Hebrew language early (see Esther) or they may represent a Northern Israelite coloring

3. Although some words are said to have been derived from Greek, they could have come from Solomon’s trade contacts with India5

E. In view of the above arguments on authorship, and plausible answers to objections, it seems reasonable to affirm that Song of Songs was written in the tenth century B.C. during Solomon’s reign (between 971 and 931 B.C.)
Deer writes, “Some wonder how Solomon could be the author of a book that extols faithfulness in marriage when he was so unfaithful, having 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Perhaps the answer is that the ‘beloved’ in the Song whom he married was his first wife. If so, then the book may have been written soon after his marriage, before he fell into the sin of polygamy”6

IV. CANON:

A. History of Development

1. The Hebrew Scriptures were probably originally canonized into a two-fold division: the Law and the Prophets7

2. By around the second century B.C.8 a three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures arose: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings9

a. The three-fold division included the same books as the two-fold division

b. There are several possible reasons for a three-fold division:10

1) A distinction was made between books which were written by men who held the prophetic office, and men who only had the prophetic gift

2) Some at a later date may have felt that those books which were not written by “prophets” were not fully canonical

3) A more practical purpose was served by the topical and festal11 significance rather than by the two-fold categories

3. Within the category of the Sacred Writings, the books of Psalms, Proverbs and Job were regarded by the Jews as specifically poetical in nature, and were described by the mnemonic title “The Book of Truth”12

4. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (The Septuagint or LXX c. 280-150 B.C.) divided the Old Testament according to subject matter which is the basis of the modern four-fold classification of the: five books of Law, twelve books of History, five books of Poetry, and seventeen books of Prophecy13

B. Some think that Song of Songs was listed in the Hebrew Canon with the five Antilegomena (Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes) because it was considered to lack religious value, but this was not the case (see above).

C. Song of Songs is not mentioned by the Alexandrian Jew Philo nor in the New Testament

D. Song of Songs was first identified in 4 Esdras 5:24-26; 7:26 (70-130 A.D.)

E. In the Mishnah Ta’anith 4:8 affirms that certain portions of Song of Songs were used in festival that were celebrated in the temple before A.D. 70.

F. In A.D. 90 the scholars of Jamnia debated the place of Song of Songs in the Hebrew canon, but Rabbi Akiba upheld its divine inspiration using allegorical interpretation as a means to justify its spiritual value14

G. It is placed among the books of wisdom and poetry in the Septuagint and most English versions (see above)

V. UNITY OF THE BOOK: Jack Deere argues that the book is not an anthology of love songs without connection or lessons, but is a unified whole in the following ways:15

A. “The same characters are seen throughout the book (the beloved maiden, the lover, and the daughters of Jerusalem).

B. Similar expressions and figures of speech are used throughout the book. Examples are love more delightful than wine (1:2; 4:10), fragrant perfumes (1:3, 12; 3:6; 4:10), the beloved’s cheeks (1:10; 5:13), her eyes like doves (1:15; 4:1), her teeth like sheep (4:2; 6:6), her charge to the daughters of Jerusalem (2:7; 3:5; 8:4), the lover like a gazelle (2:9, 17; 8:14), Lebanon (3:9; 4:8, 11, 15; 7:4), and numerous reference to nature.

C. Hebrew grammatical peculiarities found only in this book suggest a single author.

D. The progression in the subject matter points to a single work, not an anthology.16 As stated earlier, the book moves logically from the courtship (1:2--3:5) to the wedding night (3:6--5:1) to the maturation in marriage (5:2--8:4).”

VI. THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION:17

A. Allegory

1. The details of the book convey hidden meaning which has little or no connection with the normal meaning of the words; the interpretation is not connected with the author’s intended meaning (as found in the words of the text)

2. While Jewish scholars have interpreted the book as God’s love for Israel, Christian scholars have interpreted the book as God’s love for the church18

3. The allegorical interpretation requires a spiritual counterpart for every physical detail; it is objectionable to equate Solomon and his herem to Christ

4. Child’s writes, “Again, recognition of Song of Songs as wisdom runs counter to allegorical interpretation (cf. especially Audet). This traditional method seeks to transfer the Song into a different genre of biblical literature. By interpreting the Song’s imagery primarily within the framework of prophetic literature, the book is made to symbolize the prophetic themes of God’s love for his people, of the new exodus, etc. But these are precisely the themes which are missing in the wisdom corpus.”19

B. An Extended Type (where Solomon typifies Christ and the beloved typifies the church)20

1. Here Solomon is understood to be a historical person

2. Here one does not seek to discover a mystical meaning for every detail that does not coincide with the normal meaning of the words

3. However, there is no Scriptural reason for understanding Solomon to typify a relationship which God will have with his people21

C. A Drama (involving two or three characters)22

1. This view has been part of church tradition since the third century A.D.

2. This view is based largely on the Greek tragic drama which developed in the sixth century B.C.

3. The play is usually outlined in six acts with two scenes each

4. The literary genre of a fully developed “drama” was not yet known among the Hebrews or the Ancient Near East

5. The book cannot be analyzed into acts and scenes as a drama can

6. The three character view is often a part of this interpretive theory (see below for further discussion)23

D. A Collection of Syrian Weddings Songs (where the groom played the role of the King and the bride played the role of the Queen)24

E. A Collection of Pagan Fertility Cult Liturgies25

1. This is a Hebrew adaptation of the Mesopotamian fertility cult liturgy

2. The word for “beloved” is thought to be a reference to the god Dod (in 5:9 at least), they Syro-Palestinian expression of Tammuz in the Sumero-Akkadian Tammuz-Ishtar cult

3. Hill and Walton write, “The annual ritual was a reenactment of the ancient myth recounting the goddess Ishtar’s search for her dead lover in the netherworld, finally restoring him to life through sexual union and thus ensuring the continued fertility of the creation. It is assumed that the cultic associations of the Song were forgotten or consciously changed to make the book acceptable to the Israelite faith”26

4. But the motif of a dying and rising god is missing in the Song of Songs

5. It would be unlikely that such a piece would have been allowed to enter the canon

6. “The subtle use of erotic imagery in the biblical poem is far removed from the crass ‘explanations’ of the books’ alleged original meaning”27

7. Child’s writes, “to seek to understand the Song of Songs as cultic moves the book from its place within wisdom into the context of ancient Near Eastern mythology and disregards the function which the canon has assigned it”28

F. An Anthology of Disconnected Songs (promoting human love)29

1. These were a series of nuptial poems much like the Arabic wasf for wedding ceremonies

2. The songs were formalized into a single cycle that were incorporated into the Hebrew wedding ceremony

3. Child’s writes, “By ordering the Song within wisdom literature certain other alternative contexts for interpreting it are ruled out. Thus, for example, the Song is not to be understood simply as secular songs which have only superficially been offered as sacred meaning. Rowley’s naturalistic interpretation badly misses the point. The polarity of ‘secular versus sacred’ is alien from the start to the categories of Hebrew wisdom. Rather, reflection on human experience without resort to the religious language of Israel’s traditional institutions of law, cult, and prophecy is characteristic of wisdom, and is by no means a sign of secular origin”30

G. A Poetic Song of Wisdom (which provides skill for resolving conflict in the ultimate relationship of marriage)31

1. The book’s superscription as “The most excellent song of Solomon” places it in the category of wisdom literature32

2. Within this view there are two other views: a three-character love story (Woman, Shepherd-Lover, King) and a two-character love story (Woman and King).

a. The three-character view is possible33 but it is questionable because to do so requires an artificial parceling out of the verses between the King and the Shepherd34

b. There is no problem in viewing Solomon as a shepherd since he owned many flocks (Eccl 2:7)

VII. PURPOSES:

A. To extol sexual love between a man and a woman united in marriage35

B. Hill and Walton affirm that “The book is likely a northern kingdom satire on the reign of Solomon and his exploitation of women (ironically to his own demise) and a memorializing of the exemplary character of the Shulammite maiden who rejected the wooing of the king out of faithfulness to her common-lover”36

C. To affirm God’s design for sexuality between a man and a woman37

D. To unfold the maturing of a relationship between a man and a woman before, at, and after marriage


1 Hill and Walton think otherwise (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 299).

2 Archer writes, Liberal scholars have usually classes these two works together as representing approximately the same period of Hebrew literature. Certainly this relationship is favored by the standard Hebrew lexicons, which tend to group the two together lexically. It is a striking fact that neither of them refers to God as Yahweh; the Tetragrammaton does not appear in either of them. There is a significant number of words which occur only in these two books, so far as the Hebrew Scriptures are concerned. There would seem to be, therefore, a basic inconsistency in denying authenticity to Ecclesiastes on linguistic grounds and yet affirming it for the Song of Solomon despite linguistic factors (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 497).

3 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 499.

4 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 497.

5 See Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 498 for further discussion.

6 Jack S Deere, Song of Songs, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary I:1010.

7 The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which Moses' Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures, (2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the books [9:2], and (4) the recognition of the Former prophetic books by the Latter (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, pp. 148-161).

8 Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke 24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).

9 The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books--Psalms, Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books--Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of 22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 18-19).

10 Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of compositions--Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings (c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above). See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151.

This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write, Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p. 508-509).

11 Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in mourning for the destruction of Solomon's temple), Ecclesiastes (third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).

12 The word truth ( tma) was composed of the initial letters of each book--a (boya, Job), m ( ylvm, Proverbs), and t ( mylht, Praises or Psalms) see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, p. 965.

13 Law = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

History = Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther

Poetry = Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

Prophets/Major = Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel

Prophets/Minor = Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

For a more extensive overview see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 17-25.

14 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 500. But Child's counters by affirming that, It has become a common place for Old Testament Introductions to assert that the Song of Songs entered the canon because it had already been allegorized. In the light of the evidence of its canonical shaping [as wisdom literature], this statement appears highly questionable. There is no sign that the canonical shape of the book ever received an allegorical shaping. Rather, its place within wisdom literature resisted attempts to replace its message with prophetic themes. Nor did the attempts to replace its message with prophetic themes. Nor did the Song of Songs enter the anon as a 'secular' love poem in need of being made sacred. Instead, the Song entered the canon in essentially the same role as it had played in Israel's institutional life. It celebrated the mysteries of human love expressed in the marriage festival (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 578).

15 Jack S Deere, Song of Songs, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary I:1010. Continuing Deer writes The title Song of Songs offers a clue to the interpretation of the work. It is one song out of many songs. The reader therefore is not to view the work as a collection of songs but rather as one unified song. The words Song of Songs suggest the superlative, as in most holy (Ex 29:37) which is literally, 'holy of holies.' As a superlative the title may mean that this is the best of Solomon's 1,005 songs or, more likely, that this is the best of all songs. In either case the Song sets before its readers a paradigm for romantic love in courtship and marriage (Ibid., 1011).

Hill and Walton seem to be saying too much when they affirm, The interpretive stance adopted by the individual translator-commentator determines in large measure how one outlines the text, understands the poetry in respect to plot development and the number of characters in the story, and ultimately colors the way one arranges and evaluates the various strands of evidence bearing on the question of authorship and date (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 300). It is the particulars of the text and the history of interpretation which contribute to one's understanding of genre, and not the inverse.

16 Contra Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 576.

17 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 500-502; Jack S Deere, Song of Songs, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary I:1009-10; Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 302-303.

18 Deer writes, Origen, for example, wrote that the beloved's reference to her being dark (Song 1:5-6) means the church is ugly with sin, but that her loveliness ()1:5) refers to spiritual beauty after conversion. Others said the cooing of the doves (2:12) speaks of the preaching of the apostles, and some have suggested that 5:1 refers to the Lord's Supper. These examples show that the allegorical approach is subjective with no way to verify that any of the interpretations are correct. The Song of Songs nowhere gives an interpreter that suggestion that it should be understood as an allegory (Jack S Deere, Song of Songs, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary I:1009).

19 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 574-75.

20 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 502. Perhaps this is why it was read during the Passover Feast.

21 Archer is correct when he writes, There is no question that the marriage relationship was viewed by the prophets as bearing an analogy to Jehovah's position toward Israel (cf. Is 54:6; 61:10). Correspondingly, they regarded apostasy as constituting adultery or whoredom (cf. Jer 3:1; Eze 16; 23; Ho 1--3). Compare in the Torah, Exodus 34:14-16, which refers to idolatry as whoredom; and likewise Leviticus 20:5-6.

It must be admitted that these passages establish at least a typical relationship between human love and marriage and the covenant relationship between God and His people (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 500; cf. also 502).

But why would Solomon be the typological expression of this relationship? Why not David? Or why not Yahweh himself as in the above passages? It seems that the understanding of Song of Songs needs to fall more in the realm of Wisdom literature as guidance through the horizontal effects of the fall rather than through the vertical effects of the fall.

22 Franz Deiltzsch, H. Ewald, S.R. Driver.

23 Child's writes, The fact that no structure is clearly indicated in its canonical form speaks against the dramatic theory of interpretation which rests everything upon the reader's ability to reconstruct the variety of different actors and a plot (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 576).

24 E. Renan, J. Wetzstein, Umberto Cassuto.

25 Theophile Meek.

26 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 302.

27 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 573.

28 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 575. Or we might say which the author assigns it.

29 Robert Gordis. Deere writes, Scholars differ widely on the structure of the Song, its unity or lack of it, the nature of its metaphors, and the nature of the love extolled by the Song. In short, almost every verse has been the subject of lively debate by the Song's interpreters. Probably no other book of the Bible has such a variegated tapestry of interpretation (Jack S Deere, Song of Songs, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary I:1009).

30 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 574.

31 This view would include Hill and Walton's categories of didactic and literal.

32 This is true if one believes that the superscription is historical or if one only believes that it is a canonical device that guides the reader in interpreting the work. Childs writes, Audet ... has pointed out with great insight the differing approach of authorship. Whereas the modern reader considers a book to be the property of its individual author, the Old Testament viewed the book as traditional, communal, and developing. By ascribing the Song to Solomon the collector did not rule out other later voices adding to the poem, as is evident from 8.1f. in which Solomon is himself the Addressee. Nevertheless, some important claims are being made by the title which determine the context from which the book is to be interpreted.

The book, along with the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, is ascribed to Solomon as the source of Israel's wisdom literature. As Moses is the source of the Law, and David of the Psalms, so is Solomon the father of sapiential writing. Solomon's role as Israel's wise man par excellence is further reflected in the prose tradition of Kings (1 Kings 3.1ff.; 5.1ff., EVV 4.29ff.). The ascription of the Song of Songs to Solomon by the Hebrew canon sets these writings within the context of wisdom literature. Indeed this song is the 'pearl' of the collection (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 573-74).

33 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton hold to this view (A Survey of the Old Testament, 300-301).

34 Gleason L. Archer, Jr writes, Thus in chapter 4 verses 1-7 are assigned to Solomon, and verses 8-15 to the shepherd, even though there is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate that the speaker has changed. Some passages highly inappropriate to a bucolic lover are interpreted as referring to the shepherd, such as: 'My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies' (6:3). It is at least unlikely that Israelite shepherds would have had the means, the time, or the inclination for such luxuries as spice gardens or the gatherings of lilies (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 501).

35 Deere writes, This at first this seems strange, on reflection it is not surprising for God to have included in the biblical canon a book endorsing the beauty and purity of marital love. God created man and woman (Gen. 1:27; 2:20-23) and established and sanctioned marriage (Gen. 2:24). Since the world views sex so sordidly and perverts and exploits it so persistently and since so many marriages are crumbling because of lack of love, commitment, and devotion, it is advantageous to have a book in the Bible that gives God's endorsement of marital love as wholesome and pure (Jack S Deere, Song of Songs, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary I:1010; see also Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 304).

Child's says, The designation of the Song as a wisdom book of Solomon also affects how one describes its content. The role of Solomon is extended into the Song itself 3.11 pictures the arrival of Solomon's royal entourage for 'the day of his wedding' (cf. Ps. 45.12ff.). The 'king' is introduced as the lover (1.4, 12; 7.5) who seeks his 'bride' (4.8). The Song is wisdom's reflection on the joyful and mysterious nature of love between a man and a woman within the institution of marriage. The frequent assertion that the Song is a celebration of human love per se fails utterly to reckon with the canonical context (cf. Audet, 214ff.). Nowhere is human love in itself celebrated in wisdom literature, nor in the whole Old Testament for that matter. Wisdom, not love, is divine, yet love between a man and his wife is an inextinguishable force within human experience, 'strong as death', which the sage seeks to understand (cf. Prov. 5.15ff.). The writer simply assumes the Hebrew order of the family as a part of the given order of his society, and seeks to explore and unravel its mysteries from within (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 575).

36 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 303, 304-305. This assumes a three person characterization, a late date, and in this writer's opinion runs against the clear grain of the book.

37 Hill and Walton write, The poet affirms the virtue of chastity in the young lovers (4:12; 6:3; 7:10-13; 8:10) which makes a striking contrast with the self-destructive bent of sexual mores in many societies historically. The Bible gives no place to premarital or extramarital behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Matt. 5:27-28; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:13, 18; Eph. 5:3). Scriptural warnings are plain enough: God will judge all who are sexually immoral (1 Cor. 6:9, 18-20; Heb 13:4b). Recent studies disclosing the harmful emotional, psychological, and lethal physical side effects of sexual license within and outside marriage only confirm the wisdom of biblical teaching.

The positive dimensions of human love portrayed in the Song are important as cues for molding strong male-female relationships (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 305).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to the Book of Jeremiah

Related Media

I. AN INTRODUCTION TO PROPHETIC LITERATURE

A. The Identity of a Prophet:

1. Prophets were known by several terms--both Greek and Hebrew:

a. The Greek term that our English term comes from is profhvth"1 (prophetes) meaning one who proclaims and interprets divine revelation.2 It is descriptive of one who speaks forth God's word.3

b. The Hebrew terms used for a prophet are primarily ayb!n* (nabi) 4 which is probably descriptive of "one called" to speak for God5, and ha#r)h* 6 (hroeh, English "seer") which was what prophets used to be called in Israel before Samuel (1 Sam. 9:9) because they saw visions

c. Other terms for a prophet included, "man of God," "watchman," "messenger of YHWH", and "man of the Spirit"7.

2. Prophets had characteristics which were similar and distinct of their contemporaries of the Ancient Near East:

a. Similar Characteristics with the ANE8:

1) Sometimes they were identified with ecstatic experiences (1 Sam. 10:11--although this may be sarcastic)

2) Prophets spoke to Kings to encourage them or with criticism

3) Prophets spoke concerning military matters or building projects

4) Prophets received their messages through dreams, visions, trances, or ways that were not stated

b. Dissimilar Characteristics with the ANE9:

1) Biblical prophets were certain of their individual calls from YHWH (cf. Isa. 6; Jer. 1; Ezk. 1; Jonah 1, et cetera)

2) Biblical prophets were holy men who were "moved by the Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21)

3) Biblical prophets were usually identified with self-control when under revelation10

4) Biblical prophets were usually accused of antiritualism rather than with concerns of ritualism

5) Biblical prophets were concerned with far reaching messages of exile and destruction

6) Biblical prophets often spoke to the people as well as the kings

7) Biblical prophets (especially the classical prophets [see below] spoke upon the basis of the Mosaic Covenant11 (by which God chose a people to reveal himself and to carry out his plan in history)

8) Biblical prophets included an eschatological aspect to their messages whereby their totally sovereign God would unveil portions of His final stage of history12

B. Classification of the Prophets13: The prophets may be identified within three basic categories--(1) pre-monarchy14, (2) pre-classical15, (3) classical16--as the following chart unfolds:17

PERIOD

FUNCTION

AUDIENCE

MESSAGE

EXAMPLES

PRE-MONARCHY

Mouthpiece-lead

People

Nation guidance, Maintenance of justice, Spiritual overseer

Moses

Deborah

PRE-CLASSICAL

Mouthpiece-adviser

King and court

Military advice, Pronouncement of rebuke or blessing

Nathan

Elijah

Elisha

Micaiah

       

Transition:

North-Jonah18

South-Isaiah

CLASSICAL

Mouthpiece-social/spiritual commentator

People

Rebuke concerning current condition of society; leads to warnings of captivity, destruction, exile, and promise of eventual restoration, Call for justice and repentance

Writing Prophets

Best example: Jeremiah

C. The Message of the Prophet:

1. Most of the classical prophetic writings were a historic collection of sermons during turbulent times in Israel's history with a message to the problems of the nation19

2. The historic messages were collected and arranged in book form thereby being intended for later generations of Israel and of those until God's purposes in history are accomplished20

3. The following graph portrays four basic categories of prophetic oracles:21

ORACULAR CATEGORIES

DESCRIPTION

PREEXILIC EMPHASIS

POSTEXILIC

EMPHASIS

INDICTMENT

Statement of the offense

Focus primarily on idolatry, ritualism, and social justice

Focus on not giving proper honor to the Lord

JUDGMENT

Punishment to be carried out

Primarily political and projected for near future

Interprets recent or current crises as punishment

INSTRUCTION

Expected response

Very little offered; generally return to God by ending wicked conduct

Slightly more offered; more specifically addressed to particular situation

AFTERMATH

Affirmation of future hope or deliverance

Presented and understood as coming after an intervening period of judgment

Presented and understood as spanning a protracted time period

Religious: now

Socioeconomic: Potential

Political: Eventual

4. Messages Concerning the Future:

a. Prophecy certainly was a message to a historical people

b. Prophecy was also a message to a historical people in view of God's ongoing redemptive purpose; therefore, it unveiled God's sovereign plan and intentions

c. In what is usually called "predictive prophecy" the "predictive" element was attached to the present situation.

d. While the human author most probably understood the historical message which he was giving, only the Divine Author could fully know the final referent if the message spoke of the future. Nevertheless, the final referent would not (and could not) contradict the historical message of the human author.22

e. Since Jesus Christ is the center of God's salvation history, all prophecy somehow relates to Him.

II. AUTHOR: The prophet Jeremiah ( hymry ) meaning "Yahweh establishes" or "throws/lays a foundation" with the assistance of his servant, Baruch

A. The author was "Jeremiah son of Hilkiah" (1)

B. Jeremiah was commanded to write down the words which the Lord had given to him (36:1-3)

C. Jeremiah used a scribe named Baruch the son of Neriah to write down his dictation (36:4)

D. The scroll was read before king Jehoiakim and destroyed by him, but another scroll was made through Baruch the son of Neraiah (36:32)23

E. It is probable that chapters 26--52 were appended to 1--25 by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, after his death24

III. THE LIFE OF JEREMIAH

A. Ministry under Josiah:

1. Jeremiah began his ministry at about age twenty in the thirteenth year of Josiah (626 B.C.)

2. He was of a priestly family (living in Anathoth25 about three miles NE of Jerusalem) and came to Jerusalem for the annual feasts

3. He may have been well off financially since he bought the estate of his bankrupt kinsman without difficulty

4. Josiah offered protection to Jeremiah and good relations

B. Ministry after Josiah's Death:

1. Jeremiah was persecuted by the rise of an idolatrous faction in Judah

2. Jeremiah was still protected some by god-fearing elders and princes after his messages against the nation in 7--10

3. When Jeremiah was forbidden to enter the temple precinct, he sent Baruch as his spokesman to proclaim prophecies which he dictated to him

4. King Jehoiakim destroyed Jeremiah's dictated prophecies

5. King Zedekiah allowed the nobles to arrest Jeremiah as a traitor urging the nation to submit to Babylon

6. King Zedekiah was also fearful of Jeremiah because of the fulfillment of his past prediction concerning the Chaldean invasion of 598 so he rescued him and kept him safely hidden until the fall of Jerusalem

C. Ministry after the Fall of Jerusalem:

1. Although Jeremiah was offered a place of honor by the Babylonians for urging the Jews to submit to them, he chose to stay with his people in Palestine and minister to those who remained after the deportation

2. After the murder of Gedaliah he was taken off to Egypt by fugitive, remnant Jews who refused to experience Nebuchadnezzar's reprisal

3. Jeremiah lived a few years in Egypt and then died there

IV. DATE: 627/26 until shortly after 586 [582?]

A. Jeremiah was commanded by God to write down all the words which He had spoken to him in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah (605 B.C.) 36:1-3

B. Jeremiah's call came in 627/26 B.C. two years after the young26 king Josiah reached the age of twenty (626 B.C.) and in the same year that Assyria's last great king, Ashurbanipal, died leading to the establishment of an independent Babylonian state which would grow to overtake Judah

C. After the death of Josiah his sons ended his religious reforms, plotted against Babylon and were finally defeated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.

1. The second deportation occurred in 597 under Jehoiakim's rebellion; included in this deportation were Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim's son) and the prophet Ezekiel

2. The third deportation occurred in 586 under Zedekiah's rebellion with the fall of Jerusalem. Jeremiah prophesied between 597 and 586 that this further judgment was coming upon the people, but they refused to believe him and submit themselves to God's plan

D. Although Jeremiah was offered a place of honor by the Babylonians for urging the Jews to submit to them, he chose to stay with his people in Palestine and minister to those who remained after the deportation

After the murder of Gedaliah, Jeremiah was taken off to Egypt by fugitive, remnant Jews who refused to experience Nebuchadnezzar's reprisal

Jeremiah lived a few years in Egypt and then died there.

V. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:27

A. Josiah brought about the final spiritual revival for Judah when he came to the throne in 622 B.C.

B. The Assyrian Empire Fell

1. The Assyrian power rose with Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 B.C.) and Shalmaneser II (859-824 B.C.)

2. Tiglath-pileser III (Pul in the Scriptures) began a group of conquerors who took Syria and Palestine including Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C. who began the deportation of Samaria), Sargon II (722-705 B.C. who completed the deportation of Samaria), Sennacherib (704-581 B.C. who attacked king of Judah, Hezekiah [Josiah's father]), and Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C. who led campaigns against Egypt)

3. Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal (669-631) ruled much of the upper Egyptian city of Thebes, but his decline and that of Assyria's soon followed

4. Nineveh, the capital, was destroyed in 612 B.C.

5. Assyria's army was defeated in 609 B.C. at Haran

6. What was left of Assyria's army went to Carchemish (just west of the Euphrates River and north of Aram)

C. The Neo-Babylonian Empire Arose

1. Merodach Baladan was a Chaldean and father of Nabopolassar and grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar. Merodach Baladan sent ambassadors to Hezekiah (Isa 39; 2 Ki 20:12-19)

2. In October 626 B.C. Nabopolassar defeated the Assyrians outside of Babylon

3. In 616 B.C. Nabopolassar expanded his kingdom, and in 612 B.C. he joined with the Medes and destroyed Nineveh

D. A Realignment of Power in 609 B.C. and later

1. Judah: When Assyria fell and Babylon arose, Judah, under Josiah, removed itself from Assyria's control and existed as an autonomous state until 609 B.C. when it lost a battle with Egypt on the plain of Megiddo

2. Egypt:

a. Attempted to expand its presence into Palestine with Assyria's troubles

b. Egypt joined with Assyria to fight the Babylonians at Haran

1) Judah tried to stop Egypt's (Pharaoh Neco II) alliance but was defeated on the plain of Megiddo with the loss of their king, Josiah (cf. 2 Chron 35:20-24)

2) The Assyrians lost their battle with Babylon (even with the help of Egypt) and disappeared as a power in the world, and Egypt retreated to Carchemish as the dividing line between Egypt and Babylonian

3) Egypt ruled Judah:

a) Egypt (Necho) replaced Josiah's son, Jehoahaz, after three months with Jehoiakim (who was another son of Josiah) as a vassal king (2 Ki 23:34-35)

b) Egypt (Necho) plundered Judah's treasuries

c) Egypt (Necho) took Jehoahaz into captivity in Egypt

E. In 605 B.C. other changes of power occurred:

1. Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish

2. Judah's king, Jehoiakim, changed his loyalty to the Babylonians rather than the Egyptians and became Nebuchadnezzar's vassal king (2 Ki. 24:1)

3. Nebuchadnezzar had to return to Babylon with the death of his father, Nebopolassar

4. Nebuchadnezzar solidified his rule by appointing vassal kings and taking hostages; Daniel was taken as a part of this deportation (Dan 1:1-6)

F. In 601 Egypt defeated the Babylonians

1. Judah's king, Jehoiakim, switched loyalty from Babylonia to the Egyptians (2 Ki 24:1)

2. On December of 598 Babylonia made an attack on Jerusalem leading to Jehoiakim's death and the surrender of the city by his successor, Jehoiachin, in March of 597

3. Nebuchadnezzar, replaced Jehoiachin after only three months of reign, deported him and 10,000 other leaders28 from the city, looted the city, and placed Zedekiah Judah's vassal king (cf. 2 Ki 24:12-16)

G. Zedekiah was a weak king who repeated the errors of those before him; he was convinced by Egypt to revolt with a coalition of other states (Tyre and Ammon) against Babylon (588 B.C. against the advise of Jeremiah) and Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C.

H. Evil-merodach (Ewal Marduk) restored Jehoiachin on the 27th day of the 12th month of the 37th year of the captivity (506 B.C.; cf. 2 Ki 25:27)

VI. DATING JEREMIAH'S PROPHECIES:29

VII. MT and LXX

A. It is possible that an earlier edition of Jeremiah's written by Jeremiah was published in his lifetime in Egypt; this edition was 25% shorter than the MT and was used by the Septuagint30

B. The Masoretic Text seems to be based upon a larger, posthumous collection of Jeremiah's words which were compiled and rearranged in a more logical order (by Jeremiah's servant, Baruch?)31

C. The following table compares the MT with the LXX32

MT

LXX33

1:1--25:13

1:1--25:13

25:14--45:5

32:1--51:35

46:1--51:64

25:14--31:44

VIII. PURPOSES

A. To warn of impending judgment for Judah

B. To exhort people (and specifically Judah) to repentance and the obedience of YHWH's word

C. To precipitate judgment by confronting Judah's response to her final warnings and pleas for repentance

D. To predict, warn, and historically record the fall and hope of Jerusalem, as well as, its surrounding nations due to their disobedience to Yahweh's word


1 BAGD, s.v. "profhvth"", p. 723.

2 Ibid.

3 Hill and Walton seem to be correct in distinguishing the biblical concept of forthtelling from the common concept that a prophet foretells the future since a prophet only speaks God's plans and intentions, and since God's plans are not predictions so much as pre-stated certainties from the sovereign of all causation (A Survey of the Old Testament, pp. 314-315.

4 BDB, s.v." ayb!n* ", p. 661.

5 La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, p. 298-299; R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 741-742. See also Exodus 4:15ff; 7:1).

6 1 Samuel 9:9; Isa. 30:10; BDB, s.v. " ha#r) ", p. 909 meaning one who sees (perhaps a vision) from har.

7 La Sor, Old, p. 298.

8 Prophets were known in the Mari tablets of the eighteenth century B.C. and in the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the days of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (681-633 B.C.) See Hill and Walton, A Survey, pp. 309-310.

9 Much of this information comes from Hill and Walton Survey, p. 311.

10 La Sor, Old, p. 300; See R. K. Harrison's extended discussion and bibliography, Introduction, pp. 752-754

11 The judgments were restatements of the covenant curses (Lev. 26; Deut. 27-28); YHWH would determine the time of the judgments as the Judge, and the judgments would be executed by foreign nations. Only through a New Covenant (Deut. 30; Jer. 31) could the nation be restored after they fell under judgment (Elliott E. Johnson, "Elements of Recognition", Dallas Theological Seminary, p. 53).

12 Some central passages which speak to this theme are found in the words of the prophet Isaiah (41:21-24; 43:10-13; 44:6-11; 45:20-21; 48:3-7.

Post-exilic prophets had the days when YHWH would complete his program ("latter days", or "those days") as a central focus (La Sor et al, Old, p. 304.

The Day of the LORD (Day of YHWH) would be the time when YHWH would consummate his judgment and blessing.

13 La Sor et al offers a complete list with central passages, Old, pp. 301-303.

14 These are Deborah, Samuel (although Samuel is transitional as the last of the judges and the first of the monarchical [pre-classical] prophets).

They were called prophets because: (1) they were chosen in order to received revelation, (2) Moses is the prototype of a prophet [Deut. 18:18; 34:10], (3) Samuel marked a time when prophecy resumed [1 Sam. 3:7-9]. See La Sor et al, Old, pp. 300-301.

15 These are scattered throughout the historical books including oracles by Nathan, Elijah, Elisha.

16 These are most commonly identified with the "writing" prophets from the eighth through fourth century B.C. primarily including those who wrote books (Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Obed, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

17 Hill and Walton, A Survey, p. 311.

18 Jonah is unique because it does not contain a collection of prophetic oracles to the nation, but is narrative about the prophet.

19 Elliot E. Johnson, "Principle of Recognition", Class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, p. 52.

20 Ibid.

21 Hill and Walton, A Survey, pp. 313-315.

22 The Divine Author would use the human author to communicate His message often with a reference beyond the conscious awareness of the human author.

This might be illustrated as follows: If I say to my daughter, "I don't love kisses from anyone as much as from you", there would be limits to my statement (e.g., it does not include my wife). Yet, If someone brings a child to me and says, "Did you mean more than Alice?", I would say, "Yes, even though I did not have Alice in mind when I made that statement, Alice does fit with what I have said." I am speaking as the "human author" here. But if my sayings were inspired, God would say, "Yes, and Alice is specifically whom I had in mind!"

Since the message is the Divine Author's message, there are at times references beyond (but not in conflict) with the human author's awareness.

23 Perhaps this was what is now commonly known as book I--Ten Messages of Judgment against Judah (1--25).

24 For discussions of those who question the prophet as author see LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 409-10; Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 370-72.

25 This was a priestly city given to the descendants of Aaron by Joshua (cf. Josh 21:15-19). Although Jeremiah was of a priestly line (like his contemporary Ezekiel (Ezk 1:3) and Zechariah (Zech 1:1; cf. Neh 12:1, 4, 16), we are never told that he entered the priesthood in Jerusalem.

26 LaSor et al suggest that Jeremiah was also probably young when he received his calling being born shortly after 650 B.C. (Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 404).

27 This was adapted from Charles H. Dyer, "Jeremiah," The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1125-27, and Homer Heater, Jr., "Notes on the Book of Jeremiah," unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990), 101-105.

28 Perhaps Ezekiel was one of those deported during this second deportation. He would have begun his prophetic ministry five years later.

29 The chart is from Charles H. Dyer, "Jeremiah," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, I:1126. Dyer notes three observations about these prophecies: (1) there is no chronological consistency, (2) Jeremiah's messages were given during difficult times of stress, upheaval, and need like during King Josiah's reforms (1--6; 11--12), during Nebuchadnezzar's rule (7-10; 14-20; 22:1-19; 26), the first and second deportations to Babylon, the plot to rebel against Babylon, and the final deportation to Babylon, (3) the book demonstrates multiple stages of growth. Concerning number three he writes, "That is, Jeremiah, at different stages of his ministry, collected his prophecies and rearranged them in a definite pattern (cf. 25:13; 30:2; 36:2, 32). Jeremiah could have completed the final form of chapters 1--51 after he was taken hostage to Egypt (cf. 51:64). But what about chapter 52? Jeremiah 52, nearly identical to 2 Kings 24:18--25:30, was written sometime after 561 B.C. when King Jehoiachin was released from prison in Babylon (Jer. 52:31). Apparently this last chapter was appended to Jeremiah's prophecies by the same writer who compiled the book of Kings. The chapter was added to show that Jeremiah's words of Judgment had been fulfilled and that Jehoiachin's release foreshadowed God's promises of restoration and blessing" (Charles H. Dyer, "Jeremiah," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, I:1123-25).

30 Heater writes, "The LXX text of Jeremiah is one eighth shorter than the Hebrew text underlying our English translations. In addition there is somewhat of a different arrangement of material (e.g., the oracles against the nations are situated in a different place than in the MT). Qumran fragments support a reading unique to the LXX and lead to an inference that there was a Hebrew Vorlage (or underlying text) for the Greek translation. But we must stress that it is only an inference since all we have are a few fragments (4QJer). I believe we must deal with these differences as text critical problems (some want to talk about a developing canon, but canon speaks of the book, whereas textual criticism speaks of the changes in the text). See Homer Heater, Jr., "Notes on the Book of Jeremiah," unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990), 105.

31 Archer affirms, "In this connection, note that 36:32 indicates that a second preliminary edition was published in the reign of Jehoiakim, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that Jeremiah kept adding to these earlier sermons the messages the Lord gave him in the reign of Zedekiah and in the period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 370).

32 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 370.

33 LaSor et al affirm, " A likely explanation is the editors' desire to shape the book according to the patterns of Isa. 1--39 and Ezekiel: oracles of doom against Judah, oracles of doom against the nations, and oracles of hope for Judah. This stylized arrangement argues against priority of the LXX structure" (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 410).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

Pages