Given the harsh words directed toward the Pharisees, in Matthew's gospel in particular, it's interesting to see what the Rabbi's say about their own:
"Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the shikmi Pharisee, the nikpi Pharisee, the kizai Pharisee, the ‘pestle’ Pharisee, the Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’, the Pharisee from love (of God) and the Pharisee from fear. The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem. The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together. The kizai Pharisee — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He is one who makes his blood flow against walls. The ‘pestle’ Pharisee — Rabbah b. Shila said: (His head) is bowed like (a pestle in) a mortar. The Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’ — but that is a virtue! — Nay, what he says is, ‘What further duty is for me that I may perform it?’ The Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear — Abaye and Raba said to the tanna (who was reciting this passage), Do not mention ‘the Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear’; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should always engage himself in Torah and the commandments even though it be not for their own sake, because from (engaging in them) not for their own sake, he will come (to engage in them) for their own sake. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is hidden is hidden, and what is revealed is revealed: the Great Tribunal will exact punishment from those who rub themselves against the walls”(Jerusalem Talmud, “Berachot,” 14b; Babylonian Talmud, “Sotah” 22b).
Shimki: Literally the 'shoulder' Pharisee. Probably wore his deeds on his shoulders for everyone to see.
Nikpi: Pharisee who would always wait to act, or 'knocked his feet together'. He tries to find some sort of advantageous act for himself to perform. So, he falls short in his duties as a rabbinical leader since he was unsure if he should or wanted to act.
Kizai: Pharisee who was 'blind' in that he walked around with downcast eyes to avoid looking at the unclean. He 'makes his blood flow against walls' because he can't see where he's going and so runs into walls.
Pestle: The 'humpbacked Pharisee". Probably indicates that he walked around hunched over in false humility.
"What is my Duty": A Pharisee that always kept tabs on the good duties he performed in order to outweigh the bad ones. Or perhaps he thought that he had already fulfilled his obligations.
Love: The Pharisee who acted out of love for God.
Fear: The Pharisee who acted out of fear/awe/respect for God (or possibly fear of punishment).
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Isaiah 9:6 Variant in the Aramaic Targum
The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 9:6 has yet another interesting reading:
T. Isaiah 9:6 "The Prophet said to the House of David, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, wonderful, the mighty God, who lives in eternity, the messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in his days".
T. Isaiah 9:6 "The Prophet said to the House of David, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, wonderful, the mighty God, who lives in eternity, the messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in his days".
Isaiah 9:6 Variant in the LXX
I was intrigued by a variant reading in Isaiah 9:6 today:
Here is the normal reading from the Masoretic Text (MT) as translated in the NRSV:
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Here is the variant reading that occurs in the Septuagint (LXX) translated in to English in the New English Translation of the LXX:
Isaiah 9:6 "Because a child was born to us, a son was also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder, and he is named Angel of mighty council, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him".
Interesting is the use of "Angel of mighty council". Several church fathers seem to have had a preference for the LXX rendering (and some even seem aware of the MT reading):
"“A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Antiochians, 3)
"The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.5)
"And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel," (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 76)
"He has been, it is true, called “the Angel of great counsel,” that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael." (Tertullian, [Against Marcion] On the Flesh of Christ, 14)
"To him the names of Captain, and great High Priest, Prophet of the Father, Angel of mighty counsel, Brightness of the Father’s light, Only begotten Son, with a thousand other titles, are ascribed in the oracles of the sacred writers. And the Father, having constituted him the living Word, and Law and Wisdom, the fullness of all blessing, has presented this best and greatest gift to all who are the subjects of his sovereignty." (Eusebius, the Oration of Eusebius, 3.7)
"Well then, He says by the prophet, ‘A Son is born and given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Angel of Great Counsel, mighty God, Ruler, Father of the coming age’ "(Athanasius, On Luke 10:22, section 5)
"But Isaiah also says: “His name is called Angel of Great Counsel" (Origen, Commentary on John, 1.34)
"For the Spirit Himself is Power, as you read: “The Spirit of Counsel and of Power (or might).” And as the Son is the Angel of great counsel, so, too, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Counsel (Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 2.2.20)
"For there, in clear and uncontrovertible terms, there is indicated by the prophecy the dispensation of His Humanity; for “unto us,” he says, “a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name is called the Angel of mighty counsel.” And it is with an eye to this, I suppose, that David describes the establishment of His kingdom" (Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, 11.3)
(see also: John Cassian, Against Nestorius, 2.3. Novatian, Concerning the Trinity, 18, 28. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3.2.Question 83.Article 4.)
Worth exploring is the possibility that this LXX variant reflects an earlier Hebrew text and what light this might shed on understanding 9:6
Here is the normal reading from the Masoretic Text (MT) as translated in the NRSV:
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Here is the variant reading that occurs in the Septuagint (LXX) translated in to English in the New English Translation of the LXX:
Isaiah 9:6 "Because a child was born to us, a son was also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder, and he is named Angel of mighty council, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him".
Interesting is the use of "Angel of mighty council". Several church fathers seem to have had a preference for the LXX rendering (and some even seem aware of the MT reading):
"“A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Antiochians, 3)
"The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.5)
"And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel," (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 76)
"He has been, it is true, called “the Angel of great counsel,” that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael." (Tertullian, [Against Marcion] On the Flesh of Christ, 14)
"To him the names of Captain, and great High Priest, Prophet of the Father, Angel of mighty counsel, Brightness of the Father’s light, Only begotten Son, with a thousand other titles, are ascribed in the oracles of the sacred writers. And the Father, having constituted him the living Word, and Law and Wisdom, the fullness of all blessing, has presented this best and greatest gift to all who are the subjects of his sovereignty." (Eusebius, the Oration of Eusebius, 3.7)
"Well then, He says by the prophet, ‘A Son is born and given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Angel of Great Counsel, mighty God, Ruler, Father of the coming age’ "(Athanasius, On Luke 10:22, section 5)
"But Isaiah also says: “His name is called Angel of Great Counsel" (Origen, Commentary on John, 1.34)
"For the Spirit Himself is Power, as you read: “The Spirit of Counsel and of Power (or might).” And as the Son is the Angel of great counsel, so, too, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Counsel (Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 2.2.20)
"For there, in clear and uncontrovertible terms, there is indicated by the prophecy the dispensation of His Humanity; for “unto us,” he says, “a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name is called the Angel of mighty counsel.” And it is with an eye to this, I suppose, that David describes the establishment of His kingdom" (Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, 11.3)
(see also: John Cassian, Against Nestorius, 2.3. Novatian, Concerning the Trinity, 18, 28. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3.2.Question 83.Article 4.)
Worth exploring is the possibility that this LXX variant reflects an earlier Hebrew text and what light this might shed on understanding 9:6
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Perpetual Virginity
I was given reason today to consider the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary and consider why I don't accept such a theory. The simple reason is that I can find no good reason to accept it. I find no exegetical reason and nothing that can make a positive case for such a thing. I think a natural reading of the text would indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, among whom would be James and Jude.
I don't see a reason to immediately accept the idea that 'adelphos' (Greek word for brother) should automatically be taken to mean something other than 'brother' (as in two people from the same womb). I understand that it doesn't necessarily carry such a connotation all the time, but pointing to a range of meanings for a word doesn't really solve anything. It isn't logical to accept a meaning among a range of meanings without sufficient reason for making the choice.
After considering a the literary techniques used in Mark 3, the cultural background of 1st century Palestine (large families were the norm), the fact that Joseph and Mary had a real marriage (ie, a consumated one rather that a fictional and unconsumated one, which seems rather confusing anyway), the fact of James assuming the leadership of the Jerusalem church (rather than Peter, John, or another disciple), and the recent discovery of James' ossurary with the Aramaic inscription ("James son of Joseph brother of Jesus") [1], I must say that what seems to me to be the natural reading of 'adelphos' looks like it has firm support for continuing to see it as the correct reading, and there is as of yet no good reason to think otherwise. This is to say that Jesus had other brothers and sisters and so Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin.
There may be other reasons for thinking one way or another, those are just my initial thoughts.
[1] I realize this might be more controversial due to the debate over authenticity that initially surrounded the ossurary discovery. The forgery trial that ensued and lasted for 5 years has come to a close though. See:
"Strata: Forgery Trial Ends.” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2010.
"Strata: Forgery Case Collapses.” Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 2009.
I don't see a reason to immediately accept the idea that 'adelphos' (Greek word for brother) should automatically be taken to mean something other than 'brother' (as in two people from the same womb). I understand that it doesn't necessarily carry such a connotation all the time, but pointing to a range of meanings for a word doesn't really solve anything. It isn't logical to accept a meaning among a range of meanings without sufficient reason for making the choice.
After considering a the literary techniques used in Mark 3, the cultural background of 1st century Palestine (large families were the norm), the fact that Joseph and Mary had a real marriage (ie, a consumated one rather that a fictional and unconsumated one, which seems rather confusing anyway), the fact of James assuming the leadership of the Jerusalem church (rather than Peter, John, or another disciple), and the recent discovery of James' ossurary with the Aramaic inscription ("James son of Joseph brother of Jesus") [1], I must say that what seems to me to be the natural reading of 'adelphos' looks like it has firm support for continuing to see it as the correct reading, and there is as of yet no good reason to think otherwise. This is to say that Jesus had other brothers and sisters and so Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin.
There may be other reasons for thinking one way or another, those are just my initial thoughts.
[1] I realize this might be more controversial due to the debate over authenticity that initially surrounded the ossurary discovery. The forgery trial that ensued and lasted for 5 years has come to a close though. See:
"Strata: Forgery Trial Ends.” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2010.
"Strata: Forgery Case Collapses.” Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 2009.
Immaculate Conception
Thanks to Turretinfan for providing the following:
A list of interesting Papal comments on the sinlessness of Mary:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-many-popes-does-it-take-to-deny.html
Thomas Aquinas and other church fathers on the issue:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-aquinas-and-fathers-of-church-on.html
Augustine:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-augustine-teach-sinlessness-of-mary.html
A list of interesting Papal comments on the sinlessness of Mary:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-many-popes-does-it-take-to-deny.html
Thomas Aquinas and other church fathers on the issue:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-aquinas-and-fathers-of-church-on.html
Augustine:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-augustine-teach-sinlessness-of-mary.html
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Hermeneutic Assumptions
Here is a short/concise list of assumptions I make when I read the bible. First, note that we all bring a set of assumptions to the table when we read any piece of text (be it bible, newspaper, novel, or whatever). It's often due to significant differences in assumptions that lead to sometimes radically different interpretations of a passage. Here are the assumptions I use, with a quick explanation for some of them:
(1) Human words, sentences, and thoughts have definite content and meaning.
(2) The content and meaning of our words, sentences, and thoughts take on a meaning as the author of them intend.
(3) The meaning of an author words, sentences, and thoughts is discoverable by the context in which those things occur.
When approaching the bible, it's important to consider the following in order to determine the author's intent:
(4) Historical Context
(5) Cultural Context
(6) Literary Context
(7) Genre/Form
(8) Redaction
(9) Sources
(10) Canonical Context
(11) Usage of grammar and vocabular
(12) Author
(13) Ideal Audience
Further I make the following assumptions and conclusions about the bible and use these when reading the text:
(a) The bible is inspired by God
(b) The bible is a collection of many books, with many human authors, many scribes, many genres, several different cultural settings, and many different timeframes
(c) The intent of the author determines the meaning of the passage.
This list might not be all inclusive, so I will update it as appropriate.
(1) Human words, sentences, and thoughts have definite content and meaning.
(2) The content and meaning of our words, sentences, and thoughts take on a meaning as the author of them intend.
(3) The meaning of an author words, sentences, and thoughts is discoverable by the context in which those things occur.
When approaching the bible, it's important to consider the following in order to determine the author's intent:
(4) Historical Context
(5) Cultural Context
(6) Literary Context
(7) Genre/Form
(8) Redaction
(9) Sources
(10) Canonical Context
(11) Usage of grammar and vocabular
(12) Author
(13) Ideal Audience
Further I make the following assumptions and conclusions about the bible and use these when reading the text:
(a) The bible is inspired by God
(b) The bible is a collection of many books, with many human authors, many scribes, many genres, several different cultural settings, and many different timeframes
(c) The intent of the author determines the meaning of the passage.
This list might not be all inclusive, so I will update it as appropriate.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Gog and Magog: Coded Reference to the Historical Babylon
I want to explore the possibility of identifying Gog and Magog as historical figures. Besides the much discussed Eze 38-39 and Rev 20:8, the location of Magog and identity of Gog are unattested in the bible apart from Gen 10:2, 1 Chr 1:5, and 1 Chr 5:4 where Magog is clearly a nation/people descended from Japeth and Gog is the name of a person.I think it highly possible that Ezekiel is using cover words, or code words, by using Gog and Magog. If this is the case, I think the obvious candidates for Gog and Magog are Babylon (the historical Babylon, not a metaphoric one) and it's king.
First, note that Ezekiel has a long list of oracles against various nations in Eze 25-32 (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, Egypt, Lebanon, Assyria, Elam, Meshech-Tubal). This list of oracles against various nations covers Israel's historical enemies up to the time of Ezekiel with the exception of one - Babylon - the major power that was contemporary with Ezekiel. Why does Ezekiel leave out the name of the power that sacked Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and carried people away into exile? Isaiah and Jeremiah have no trouble making pronouncements against Babylon, but Ezekiel surprisingly leaves them out. Or does he? It must be remembered that Isaiah lived prior to Ezekiel and that Jeremiah had gone into exile into Egypt (Jer 43). Ezekiel, however, lived among the captives in Babylon (Eze 1:1). As a captive trying to make do with his captors, Ezekiel must not openly oppose the king if he wants to preserve his messages and possibly his life. In this case, Ezekiel reserves one of his most lengthy and climactic oracles for Babylon, but he uses the cover words of "Gog" and "Magog" in order for protection. There are several other supporting reasons that this may indeed be the case:
(1) Gog is referd to as the prince of Meshech and Tubal in 38:1-3 (two lands that were north of Israel in Asia Minor). Nebuchadrezzar conquered these regions during his reign.
(2) Gog is said to come from the North (38:6). King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon attacks from the north (Eze 26:7; Jer 25:9).
(3) Gog leads "many peoples" with him into battle (Eze 38:6,9). King Nebuchadrezzar leads many peoples into battle (26:7, 31:11).
(4) Gog attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets (38:4-5). King Nebu. attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets(23:23-24, 26:10).
(5) The title "Prince of the head of Meschech and Tubal" may be a title that was even given to King Nebu. due to his brokering a peace treaty during his reign between Lydia and the Medes when a dispute arose over control of Meschech and Tubal (Barton, John. Oxford Bible Commentary p 559).
(6) Elsewhere in Ezekiel King Nebuchadrezzar is described in a rather positive light where he is the conqueror of many nations (26:7, 29:18-19, 30:10,24) and even has the title "king of kings" (26:7) and he weilds Yahweh's sword (30:24). Curiously Jeremiah seems to speak of him very negatively calling him a monster (51:34) and painting him as the king who captured Jerusalem and exiled the Israelite people. And unlike Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Isaiah don't mind giving oracles against Babylon (Jer 50-51; Is 14, 21, 48; Hab 1:6) Why doesn't Ezekiel speak negatively of Nebuchadrezzar as Jeremiah did? I think if we consider that Ezekiel is living among the exiles in Babylon, it makes sense not to speak against the Babylonian king in such a direct manner. But if Ezekiel is using cover words in chapters 38-39 then he does indeed speak against Babylon and her king just as Jeremiah did.
(7) Magog itself may be a cryptogram for "Babel" in a very similiar manner to the way Jeremiah makes a cryptogram with "Sheshach" in Jer 25:26 and 51:41 and "Leb-qamai" in Jer 51:1 (for an explanation of how the cryptogram works see: Boe, Sverre. "Gog and Magog", p 96). Here is how the cryptogram works in Jeremiah 51:1:
“Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ (shin) is substituted for Hebrew ב (bet) and Hebrew כ (kaf) is substituted for Hebrew ל (lamed). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41 where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it. (NETBible: Jeremiah 51 )
Given this information, it is very possible to see Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 as a coded reference to Babylon and the Babylonian king, and it may even be possible to directly identify the king as Nebuchadrezzar, though I don't think it needs to be seen as being that specific. The setting of Eze 38-39 still has a very future aspect to it though and it seems to take on almost cosmic proportions as a great battle against the whole earth. It's completely understandable that the defeat of Babylon, it's vassals, and it's allies would be described in such futuristic terms though. After all, for Ezekiel Babylon was still the world superpower and so of course it's defeat would be in the future - a future that would be realized when Babylon was actually defeated by the Persians. The defeat of Babylon takes on cosmic proportions as a great battle because Ezekiel ties the release of the Israelite exiles and the defeat of the arch enemy (Babylon) to the vindication of Yahweh's own Name. When the nations saw the end of Israel's exile and the appearent improbable defeat of Babylon, they should realize that Yahweh had vindicated His Name (Eze 36-37). The battle against Babylon would have been seen as a battle against the whole earth since in the time of Ezekiel Babylon controlled the known earth. I think it's safe to say that there is warrant for concluding that Gog and Magog are nothing more than code for the historical Babylon (not a metaophorical Babylon).
First, note that Ezekiel has a long list of oracles against various nations in Eze 25-32 (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, Egypt, Lebanon, Assyria, Elam, Meshech-Tubal). This list of oracles against various nations covers Israel's historical enemies up to the time of Ezekiel with the exception of one - Babylon - the major power that was contemporary with Ezekiel. Why does Ezekiel leave out the name of the power that sacked Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and carried people away into exile? Isaiah and Jeremiah have no trouble making pronouncements against Babylon, but Ezekiel surprisingly leaves them out. Or does he? It must be remembered that Isaiah lived prior to Ezekiel and that Jeremiah had gone into exile into Egypt (Jer 43). Ezekiel, however, lived among the captives in Babylon (Eze 1:1). As a captive trying to make do with his captors, Ezekiel must not openly oppose the king if he wants to preserve his messages and possibly his life. In this case, Ezekiel reserves one of his most lengthy and climactic oracles for Babylon, but he uses the cover words of "Gog" and "Magog" in order for protection. There are several other supporting reasons that this may indeed be the case:
(1) Gog is referd to as the prince of Meshech and Tubal in 38:1-3 (two lands that were north of Israel in Asia Minor). Nebuchadrezzar conquered these regions during his reign.
(2) Gog is said to come from the North (38:6). King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon attacks from the north (Eze 26:7; Jer 25:9).
(3) Gog leads "many peoples" with him into battle (Eze 38:6,9). King Nebuchadrezzar leads many peoples into battle (26:7, 31:11).
(4) Gog attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets (38:4-5). King Nebu. attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets(23:23-24, 26:10).
(5) The title "Prince of the head of Meschech and Tubal" may be a title that was even given to King Nebu. due to his brokering a peace treaty during his reign between Lydia and the Medes when a dispute arose over control of Meschech and Tubal (Barton, John. Oxford Bible Commentary p 559).
(6) Elsewhere in Ezekiel King Nebuchadrezzar is described in a rather positive light where he is the conqueror of many nations (26:7, 29:18-19, 30:10,24) and even has the title "king of kings" (26:7) and he weilds Yahweh's sword (30:24). Curiously Jeremiah seems to speak of him very negatively calling him a monster (51:34) and painting him as the king who captured Jerusalem and exiled the Israelite people. And unlike Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Isaiah don't mind giving oracles against Babylon (Jer 50-51; Is 14, 21, 48; Hab 1:6) Why doesn't Ezekiel speak negatively of Nebuchadrezzar as Jeremiah did? I think if we consider that Ezekiel is living among the exiles in Babylon, it makes sense not to speak against the Babylonian king in such a direct manner. But if Ezekiel is using cover words in chapters 38-39 then he does indeed speak against Babylon and her king just as Jeremiah did.
(7) Magog itself may be a cryptogram for "Babel" in a very similiar manner to the way Jeremiah makes a cryptogram with "Sheshach" in Jer 25:26 and 51:41 and "Leb-qamai" in Jer 51:1 (for an explanation of how the cryptogram works see: Boe, Sverre. "Gog and Magog", p 96). Here is how the cryptogram works in Jeremiah 51:1:
“Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ (shin) is substituted for Hebrew ב (bet) and Hebrew כ (kaf) is substituted for Hebrew ל (lamed). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41 where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it. (NETBible: Jeremiah 51 )
Given this information, it is very possible to see Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 as a coded reference to Babylon and the Babylonian king, and it may even be possible to directly identify the king as Nebuchadrezzar, though I don't think it needs to be seen as being that specific. The setting of Eze 38-39 still has a very future aspect to it though and it seems to take on almost cosmic proportions as a great battle against the whole earth. It's completely understandable that the defeat of Babylon, it's vassals, and it's allies would be described in such futuristic terms though. After all, for Ezekiel Babylon was still the world superpower and so of course it's defeat would be in the future - a future that would be realized when Babylon was actually defeated by the Persians. The defeat of Babylon takes on cosmic proportions as a great battle because Ezekiel ties the release of the Israelite exiles and the defeat of the arch enemy (Babylon) to the vindication of Yahweh's own Name. When the nations saw the end of Israel's exile and the appearent improbable defeat of Babylon, they should realize that Yahweh had vindicated His Name (Eze 36-37). The battle against Babylon would have been seen as a battle against the whole earth since in the time of Ezekiel Babylon controlled the known earth. I think it's safe to say that there is warrant for concluding that Gog and Magog are nothing more than code for the historical Babylon (not a metaophorical Babylon).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)