AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

1/92

A ndre w s Univers i tyS E M I N A R SS T U D I E SVolume 20 N u m ber 1 S p r i n g 1982

Andrews Univers i ty Press

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

2/92

ANDREW S UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIEST h e J o u r n a l of t h e S e v e n t h -d a y A d v e n t i s t T h e o lo g ic al S e m i n a r yof A n d r e w s U n i v e r s i t y , B e r r i e n Sp r in g s , Michigan 4910 4 , U . S . A .

Editor: K E N N E T H A . S T R A N DAssociate Editors: JAMES J. C. Cox, R A O U L DEDER EN , LAWR EN CE T .G E R A T Y , G E R H A R D F. H A S E L , W I L L I A M H . H E S S E L , G E O R G E E.RICE, L E O N A G . RUNNINGBook Review Editor: W I L L I A M H . S H E AEditorial Assistant: E L L E N S . E R B E SCirculation Manager: E L L E N S . E R B E SEditorial and Circulation Offices: AUSS, Seminary Hall, AndrewsUniversity, Berrien S p r i n g s , M I 4 9 1 0 4 , U . S . A .A N D R E W S U N I V E R S I T Y S E M I N A R Y S T U D IE S publishes papers and briefnotes on the following subjec ts : Biblical l i n gu i s t i c s and i t s cognates,Biblical theology, textual criticism, exeges i s , Biblical archaeology andgeography, ancient history, church history, systematic theology,philosophy of religion, ethics, history of r e l ig ion s , m i s s i o l o g y , andspecial areas relating to practice of ministry and to religious education.The opinions e x p re s s e d i n articles, brief notes, book reviews, etc., arethose of the authors and d o not n e c e s s a r i l y represent the v i e w s of theeditors.

Subscription Information: A N D R E W S U N I V E R S I T Y S E M I N A R Y S T U D IE S ispublished in the Spring, Summer, and Autumn. The subscription ratefor 1 9 8 1 is as fo l lows:

ForeignU . S . A . ( in U . S . A . f u n d s )Re gular Subsc r ibe r . ................. $10.00* $11.50*I ns t i tu t ions ( i nc lud ing Libra r i e s ) . ...... 12.50* 14.00*Students........................... 8.00* 9.50*Retirees............................ 8.00* 9.50*

(Pr ic e for S ingle C o p y is $5.00)'NOTE: T h e s e a re n e t ra tes for prepaid order s . A handl ing a n d s e rv i ce feeof $ 1 .50 w i ll be a d d e d i f o r d e r s are to be bi l led.

Subscribers should g i v e full name and postal address when paying theirsubscriptions and should s e n d notice of change of address at least f i v ew e e k s before it is to take effect (o ld address as well as new address mustbe g i v e n ) . S e n d all communications to AUSS, Seminary Hall, AndrewsUniversity, Berrien S p r i n g s , M I 4 9 1 0 4 , U . S . A .

Composition by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN 46 5 90Printing by Thomson-Shore, Inc., Dexter, M I 4 8 1 SO

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

3/92

ANDRE WS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIE SVolume 20 Spring 1982 Number

C O N T E N T SARTICLES

BRUNT, JOHN, A N D W I N S L O W , G E R A L D . The Bible ' s R o l ein Christian Ethics............................... 3RICE, G E O R G E E. Luke 4:31-44: Re lease for theCaptives........................................ 2 3S H E A , W I L L I A M H. Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical T e x t sand the Convocation on the Plain o f Dura............ 2 9STRAND, K E N N E T H A . Two A s p e c t s of Babylon's

Judgment Portrayed in Revelation 18................ 5 3ANDRE WS UNIVE RSITY D O C T O R A L DISSE RTATION ABSTRACTS

DAVIDSON, R I C H A R D M . Typological Structures in theOld and NewTestaments.......................... 61EBLING, JOSE C. J. Students' Comprehension of the

Almeida V e r s i o n and a Modern V e r s i o n o f the Biblein Portuguese (A Biblia na Linguagem de H o j e ) inS e l e c t e d Public Schools of Brazil A ComparativeStudy .......................................... 63

HEINZ, JOHANN. Justification and Merit: The Interpretation and Evaluation of the Concept ofMerit in Modern Catholic Theology in Relationto Luther's Doctrine of Justification................. 65

MITCHEL, L A R R Y A . The Hellenistic and RomanPeriods at Tell Hesban, Jordan..................... 67

B O O K R E V IE W S . 69Alsop, John R., ed. An Index to the Revised Bauer-Arndt-GingrichGreek Lexicon, Second Edition by F . Wilbur Gingrich andFrederick W. Danker S akae K u b o

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

4/92

2 S E M I N A R Y S T U D I E SA u n e , David E. Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels: A Bibliographic

Study Guide. Warren C. TrenchardBelo, Fernando. A Materialistic Reading of the Gospel

ofMark George E. R i c eB e r g e r , David. The Jewish Christian Debate in theHigh Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the

Nizzahon Vetus Richard Kenneth EmmersonChilds, Brevard S . Introduction to the Old Testament

as Scripture. Jerry A . GladsonCon y be a r e , F. C., a n d Stock, St. G e o r g e A Grammar of

SeptuagintGreek e o r g e E.RiceThe Expo sitor s Bible Commentary. Vol. 9 : John-Acts.By Merr i l l C. T e n n e y and Richard N . Longenecker. .... .George E . R i c eHals , Ronald M . Grace and Faith in the

OldTestament Gerhard F. H a s e lH o l m e s , C. Raymond. It s a Two-Way Street. .Norval F. P e a s eHornus, Jean-Mjchel. It Is Not Lawful for Me to Fight:

Early Christian Attitudes toward War,Violence, and theState Gerhard F. H a s e lR i c e , Richard. The Openness of God: The Relationshipof Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will .....Robert M . Johnston

BOOK NOTICES. 87

A N D R E W S U N I V E R S I T Y S E M I N A R Y ST U DIE ST he J our n a l of the S e ve n t h-d a y Ad ve n t i s t T he ol og i c a l S e mi n a r yof A n d r e w s U n i ve r s i t y , B e r r i e n Spr ings , Michigan 49104, U . S . A .

The ar t ic le s i n th i s journal are i n d e x e d , abstracted, o r l i s t e d i n : Book Reviews of theMonth; Elenchus Bibliographicus Biblicus; International Bibliography of theHistory of Religions; Internationale Zeitschriftenschau fur Bibelwmenschaft undGrenzgebiete; New Testament Abstracts; Old Testament Abstracts; Orien-talistische Literaturzeitung; Orient-Press; Recently Published Articles (publicationof the American Historical Assoc ia t ion) ; Religion Index One: Periodicals ( f o r m e r l yIndex to Religious Periodical Literature); Religious and Theological Abstracts;Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index; Subject Index to PeriodicalLiteratureMosher Library; Theologische Zeitschrift; Zeitschrift fur die alt-testamentliche Wissenschaft.

Copyright 1 9 8 2 by Andrews University P r e s s I S S N 0003-2980

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

5/92

Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1982, Vol. 20, No. 1 , 3-21.Copyright 1982 by A n d r e w s University P r e s s .

THE BIBLE'S ROLE IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS*JOHN BRUNT and GERALD WINSLOW

Walla W a ll a C o ll e g eCollege Place, Washington 9 9 3 2 4

Biblical scholars and Christian ethicists h a v e in the pastfrequently had little contact with each other's w o r k . The formerh a v e b e e n content to limit their focus to historical questions;w h e r e a s the latter h a v e usually spoken to contemporary morali s s u e s either with minimal r e f e r e n c e to Scripture or with littleconcern for t h e technical and historical questions of biblicalscholarship. Meanwhile, people in the pew have generally assumedthat the connections between Scripture and moral decision-makingw e r e obvious, e v e n though Scripture has often played little or norole in their actual decisions. Today, h o w e v e r , t h e r e is a renewedinterest in the place of. Scripture in the Christian's moral l ife.Christian ethicists and biblical scholars are joining in a new andpotentially fruitful dialogue. 1

Such a dialogue i s obviously not f r e e of problems. How muchmoral guidance is likely to c o m e from a book which a d d r e s s e s t h emorality of eating food o f f e r e d to idols and which prohibits a fr e e ds lav e from keeping his slave-girl w i f e ? I s it reasonable to expectsuch an ancient collection of documents to speak t o the morali s s u e s of contemporary soc ie ty ? I f so, what i s the nature of Scripture's moral authority for t h e present-day Christian? I s t h e chieflocus of i t s authority the p r o c e s s of character formation, of community building, or of decision-making? D o e s Scripture, with itsv a s t v a r i e t y of materials, e v e n present a unified, coherent picture ofmoral virtue and obligation? And i s it possible to focus on moral

Adapted from a paper presented at the W e st Coast S D A Religion Teachers'C o n f e r e n c e , Walla Walla College, College Place, Washington, M a y 1981.'For a r e c e n t bibliographic r e v i e w of th i s dialogue s e e A l i e n Ve rh e y , "The U s e

of Scripture in Ethics," Religious Studies Review 4 (1978): 28-37.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

6/92

4 JOHN B R U N T A N D G E R A L D WINSLOW

obligations and the justification of moral actions without usurpingGod's position as the One who justifies by his grace? The foregoingprovide a sampling of the kinds o f questions being a s k e d .This article a d d r e s s e s only a f e w of the methodological questions that must be answered if Scripture i s to be relevant forChristian ethics and s e t s forth s o m e suggestions toward establishinga model for relating Scripture to e t h i c s .

1. Approaches for Relating Scripture to EthicsW e begin with a brief s u r v e y of various approaches to establishing this relationship of Scripture to e th ics . Our typology is byno means exhaustive either in giving t h e entire range of possibleapproaches or in representing all of th e important advocates of a

given model. It is radier intended to be suggestive o f the range o fapproaches currently being advocated and to point out a f e w of t h eadvantages and disadvantages of each .Model 1: Biblical Ethics Equals Christian Ethics

It i s commonly held by fundamentalists and evangelicals thatbiblical ethics equals Christian e th ics , a v i e w given scholarlyexpression by such writers as Carl F. H. Henry 2 and John Murray. 3This approach emphasizes that Scripture represents a "revealedmorality." Henry i s specifically critical of th e modern tendency toseparate "biblical ethics" from "Christian ethics," feeling that thatwhich the Bib le t each es is Christian e t h i c s . 4This model also emphasizes the unity of Scripture in addressingd i e Christian's moral l ife. Henry can speak of a "unitary biblicalethic, o f one coherent and consistent moral requirement, that laysclaim on all men at all times," 5 while Murray finds in Scripture"objectively r e v e a l e d precepts, institutions, commandments whichare the norms and channels of human behavior." 6

2 Carl F. H . Henry, Christian Personal Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1957).3 John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids,

Mich. , 1957).4 Henry, p. 236.5 Ibid., p. 327.'Murray, p. 24.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

7/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 5

This r e v e a l e d morality i s understood to g i v e quite specificinformation. While admitting that t h e moral information of Scr ipture is not always explicit, Henry contends that "there is actuallyno ethical decision in l ife which the biblical revelation l e a v e swholly untouched and for which, i f carefully interpreted andapplied, it cannot afford s o m e concrete guidance." 7 The Bib le d o e snot merely provide principles but e m b r a c e s t h e particularities ofl ife, giving specific guidelines for ethical d e c i s i o n s . 8

In light of this specific guidance there is n e v e r , according toHenry, a conflict of Christian duty: "In t h e ethical dilemmas o f l i fet h e r e i s n e v e r a real conflict of duty, e v e n though t h e mind andheart m a y be torn between apparent conflicts that are as y e tunresolved." 9

Not only d o e s Scripture r ev ea l a clear, unambiguous Christianduty; there is also a distinctive Christian virtue that i s attainedonly by Christians, as Henry m a k e s clear in t h e following twopassages:

A Jonathan apple t r e e produces Jonathan apples because o fthe distinctive nature o f the t ree . . E v e n s o the Christian l i feproduces ethical virtues that are distinctive and characteristic ofthe Christian l i fe alone. There may be imitations of Christianvirtues, but t h e y are no m o r e t h e r e a l thing than a crab apple is aJonathan apple. 1 0

Christians alone are godlike, for G o d is making them l ikehimself in virtue, holiness, and character. 1 1According t o this model, then, Scripture provides a unique,

r e v e a l e d morality that a d d r e s s e s any situation a Christian mightface so that there i s no ambiguity of duty. By following this guide,t h e Christian i s l e d to a l ife of virtue and moral obligation, unlikethat of the non-Christian. Basically , Christian ethics consists ofdiscovering what the Bib le s ay s and, as converted persons, actingon th i s .

'Henry, p. 339."Ibid.9 Ib id., p. 340.'"Ibid., p. 472."Ibid., p. 508.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

8/92

6 JOHN BRUNT AND G E R A L D WINSLOW

Such a model has sev e r a l advantages. It is neat and notconfounded by ambiguities. It also takes Scripture seriously, r ecognizing i t s importance for the moral l ife. M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e of thisstrong focus on Scripture, i t is not as l ike ly as s o m e other models toaccept uncritically the norms and values of culture that might beout of harmony with Scripture.But there are also potential disadvantages. This model m a y betoo simplistic, overlooking the complexity of many contemporarysituations and the genuine conflicts in values t h e y produce. Canw e , for instance, extract f r o m Scripture an unambiguous picture ofChristian duty with regard to s o m e o f the difficult dilemmas thatare faced in contemporary bioethics, such as genetic engineering orthe allocation of scarce life-saving r e sour c es? It i s also questionablewhether this model's optimistic conclusions about t h e distinctive-n e s s of Christian virtues and obligations are warranted. Historyprovides too many disconcerting examples of Christians laggingbehind their non-Christian contemporaries in t h e pursuit of socialjustice. Finally, while this m o d e l takes seriously the importance ofScripture for ethics, it is questionable whether it actually takes thecontent of Scripture s e r i o u s l y . D o e s i t r e c o g n i z e t h e diversity andbreadth of material in Scripture, t h e distinction b e t w e e n apodicticprinciples and culturally related practices, and the fact that Scr ipture d o e s not speak specifically to many contemporary dilemmas?Most of th e focus in this model i s on t h e rules and propositions ofScripture. But the Bible d o e s not, of course, consist mostly of rulesand propositions. The question, then, is: D o e s this model takeseriously the whole Bible?Model 2: Biblical Ethics Is Generally Irrelevant for Christian Ethics

A diametrically opposite v i e w , that biblical ethics is generallyirrelevant for Christian e th ics , i s seldom g i v e n serious expression,though Jack T. Sanders has argued for it in a recent monograph onthe NT and ethics. 1 2 According to S a n d e r s , there are two majorfactors that render the NT largely irrelevant for e th ics : th e diversityof Scripture, and the imminent eschatological expectation of the

1 2 Jack T. S a n d e r s , Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development(Philadelphia, 1975).

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

9/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 7NT w r i t e r s . The latter consideration m a k e s it impossible f o r t h e s ewriters to be of help to us, for their expectation w a s not realized,and w e must come to t e r m s with the complexities of l i fe in acontinuing world. This is true e v e n o f Jesus , according to S a n d e r s :

Jesus d o e s not provide a valid e th ics fo r today. His ethicalteaching is interwoven with his imminent eschatology to such ad e g r e e that e v e r y attempt to separate the t w o and to draw out onlythe ethical thread invariably and inevitably draws out also strandsof the eschatology, s o that both y a r n s only l ie in a heap. B e t t e r t ol eav e a t a p e s t r y intact, to le t J e s u s . return to his own t i m e . 1 3S a n d e r s sees the book of James as t h e one bright spot in t h e

NT, as far as ethics i s concerned. James r eac t s against Paul andargues that faith without works is d e a d . In th is , s ay s S a n d e r s ,James misunderstands Paul, but in turning against the Christiantradition for t h e sake of t h e f e l l o w human by emphasizing t h efutility o f faith that lacks concern for t h e neighbor's n e e d s , Jamespresents the b e s t of NT e t h i c s . 1 4 Furthermore, in light of thisexample, w e are now f ree to d e r i v e our ethical criteria not f r o m t h eChristian tradition (Jesus, Scripture, e a r l y church) but from t h econtext. Ethical criteria are b e s t derived from one's own activeinvolvement in l i fe and s o c i e t y and f r o m one's realization, apartfrom t h e NT, that s o m e things ar e not right. 1 5 Thus Sandersconcludes:

The ethical positions of the N e w Testament are the childreno f their own times and places, alien and foreign to this d a y andage. Amidst the ethical dilemmas which confront us, w e are nowat leas t r e l i e v e d of t h e n e e d or temptation to begin with Jesus, orthe ear ly church or the N e w Testament, i f w e wish to developcoherent ethical positions. W e are f r e e d from the bondage to thattradition, and are able to propose, with the author of the Epistleo f James, that tradition and precedent must not be allowed tostand in t he w ay of what is humane and right. 1 6

"Ibid . , p. 29."Ibid., p. 1 2 7 .1 5 Ibid., p. 90.I6 lbid., p. 1 3 0 .

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

10/92

8 JOHN BRUNT AND G E R A L D WINSLOW

It cannot be denied that this model has the advantages o ftaking both the diversity of Scripture and t h e complexity of contemporary dilemmas s e r i o u s l y . But it also r a i s e s questions. I s thereno unity, at l eas t at the l ev e l of basic moral principles, whichstands behind this d i v e r s i t y ? And w h y d o e s eschatological expectation n e c e s s a r i l y negate ethical r e l e v a n c e ?A more serious problem for this model i s i t s failure to recognizet h e diversity of contemporary norms and values . I s that which is"humane and right" s e l f - e v i d e n t ? There are, no doubt, m a n y from the "moral majority" to t h e "life-boat-ethics"advocateswho have v e r y different i d e a s about "the right" than d o e s S a n d e r s .What are the criteria for establishing what is right? Sanders s u g g e s t sthat t h e s e criteria come f r o m involvement in l ife. But d o e s involvement per se yield moral criteria? The generals i n t h e Vietnam warw e r e as involved as anyone in that conflict. D o e s that necessarilymean that valid moral criteria w e r e more evident to them? S a n d e r sl eaves unanswered the whole question of how the "humane andright" are to be grounded.

The t w o models s u r v e y e d thus far represent the e x t r e m e s ofour typology. Most of the current discussion of Scripture and ethicsfalls somewhere b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o . In fact, Alien V e r h e y speaks ofwhat he calls a "Chalcedonian consensus" that rules these twomodels out. In spite of great d i v e r s i t y and unsolved problems, t h emajority of scholars currently addressing the question are agreedthat biblical ethics i s not t h e s a m e as Christian ethics and y e t thatthe Bible i s somehow normative for Christian ethics. 1 7 Typical ofcomments along this line is James M . Gustafson's statement:

The principal problem is to determine how d e c i s i v e theauthority of Scripture is for one's moral judgment. Only the t w oe x t r e m e s a r e absolutely precluded: It d o e s not have the authorityof verbal inspiration that the religiously c o n s e r v a t i v e d e f e n d e r s ofa "revealed morality" would g ive to i t , nor is it totally withoutr e l e v a n c e to present moral judgments. 1 8

"Verhey, p. 30 .'"James M . Gustafson, "The Place of Scripture in Christian Eth ics : A M e t h o d

ological Study," Int 2 4 (1970): 430-455.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

11/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 9The three remaining models that w e will s u r v e y fall between t h et w o e n d s of the spectrum represented by t h e foregoing models.Model 3: God Is Free to Command

The concept that "God is f ree to command" i s primarily t h eposition of neo-orthodox theologians, especially those such as KarlEarth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who oppose natural theology. Itplaces strong emphasis on t h e all-sufficiency of grace and t h einadequacy of human effor t . Because t h e sinner can only respond,and b e c a u s e God's act of justification rules out all self-justification,ethical reflection that s eeks to justify certain acts is considered suspect. Christians are called to respond in obedience to God's grace,not to r e f lec t on good and e v i l .Thus, Bonhoeffer argues that Christian e t h i c s i s the critique ofall ethics, for ethical reflection aims at the knowledge of good andevi l . Christian ethics invalidates this knowledge. 1 9 Bonhoeffer s a y sof the Christian, "Not f e t t e r e d by principles, but bound by l o v e forGod," the individual "has b e e n se t f r ee from the problems andconflicts o f ethical decision." 2 0According to this model, t h e e s s e n c e of ethics i s obedience tothe command of God. Again, Bonhoeffer s a y s that "God's com mandment is the s p e e c h o f God to man. Both in i t s contents and ini t s form it is concrete s p e e c h to t h e c o n c r e t e man. God's commandment l e a v e s no room for application or interpretation. He l e a v e sroom only for obedience or disobedience." 2 1This d o e s not mean that a d v o c a t e s o f this position are notinterested in ethics. Barth g o e s s o far as to argue that dogmaticsitself i s ethics, for it deals with the Word of God, and the Word ofGod is concerned with the experience o f actual l i fe . 2 2 Both Barthand Bonhoeffer speak in detail to spec i f ic ethical i s sues . In doingso, t h e y recognize that there i s no direct line from the command ofScripture to contemporary decisions.

"Dietrich B o n h o e f f e r , Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge , t rans . Neville Horton Smith( N e w Y o r k , 1955), p. 1 7 .2 0 Ibid, p. 68 .2 1 Ibid, p. 278.2 2 K a r l Barth, Church Dogmatics, t rans . G . W . B r o m i l e y , 13 vols . (Edinburgh,1957-1969), vol . 1 , part 2 , pp. 782-796.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

12/92


What role, then, d o e s Scripture play in this m o d e l ? Accordingto Earth, Christian duty is response to the command of God. Thiscommand is not identical with t h e content of Scripture, but S c r i p ture r e v e a l s the "prominent lines" along which this command willstrike. W e b e c o m e the contemporaries of the Bib le writers a s w econfront Scripture and as together with them w e listen to theconcrete command of God. B u t w e do not simply do what t h e y didor taught. In fact, w e might do that, and still not be followingGod's command. W e must follow God's concrete command to us.

Bonhoeffer also emphasizes obedience to t h e concrete command. He s t r e s s e s that it d o e s not c o m e by s o m e direct inspirationto the individual, 2 4 but through the church family , labor, andgovernment. 2 5This model warns against self-justification and legalism in ahelpful w a y and avoids the over-simplicity of th e first model byrecognizing that there is no one-to-one correspondence betweenScripture and ethics. But it has i t s own over-simplifications. Itl eaves us wondering how spec i f ica l ly to hear the command of Godand to know that it i s indeed God's command. This is especiallytrue when w e a r e confronted with difficult moral dilemmas. Infact, it would b e e a s y for such a s t a n c e t o degenerate into anauthoritarianism that simply d e c l a r e s what is God's commandwithout clearly defining how God's command i s distinguishedfrom other v o i c e s .Model 4: The Bible Forms Traits of Character

Another model s t r e s s e s t h e importance of the Bible's role forcharacter building. This model r e c o g n i z e s t h e difficulty o f movingdirectly from Scriptural injunctions to contemporary decisions, butit affirms the relevance of Scripture for e t h i c s by shifting the focusof Scripture's relevance. The focus of t h i s r e l e v a n c e is not thedecision-making p r o c e s s , but t h e p r o c e s s of character formation.Scripture shapes t h e character of the moral actor. Both ethicists andbiblical scholars have sounded this emphasis.

2 S Ibid., vol . 4, part 2, pp. 546-553."Bonhoeffer, p. 40."Ibid., pp. 278, 286-302.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

13/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 1 1

J. L . Houlden is a representative o f the latter group. 2 5 Throughout his work he s t r e s s e s t he d i v e r s it y of the NT materials and rulesout their direct application for contemporary e th ics. He warnsagainst harmonizing this d i v e r s i t y into a "New Testament view."What Scripture d o e s do i s to form the Christian mind. 2 7 He says :

The N e w Testament, like great art, may act upon a man andl ead him to g o o d n e s s , not by direct command but by subtle andcomplex interaction which i n v o l v e s the N e w Testament writers'integrity, and behind them th e impulse o f Jesus, and the reader'sr e a d i n e s s to crea te af re sh out o f the material o f his own experience. 2 8The joint work of B r u c e B i r c h and Larry Rasmussen, a biblical

scholar and ethicist r e s p e c t i v e l y , also draws h e a v i l y , though note x c l u s i v e l y , on this m o d e l . "Our contention," t h e y say, " i s that themost e f f e c t i v e and crucial impact of the Bible on Christian ethics i sthat o f shaping t h e moral identity of the Christian and thechurch." 2 9 This shaping includes t h e molding o f p e r s p e c t i v e s ,dispositions, and intentions.

For Birch and Rasmussen, a place for Scripture in the decision-making p r o c e s s i s not ruled out, h o w e v e r : "While the place" of theBib le in decision making and action on moral i s s u e s d o e s not, inour judgment, match in significance i t s potential influence incharacter formation, there are nevertheless s e v e r a l important pointsof contact." 3 0 The Bib le is a s o u r c e of moral norms and ass i s t s inlocating the burden of proof for ethical questions, but it is not thesole source of norms. Here Birch and Rasmussen show affinitieswith the next model to be presented be low. N e v e r t h e l e s s , their chiefemphasis is on character formation.Among ethicists, Stanley Hauerwas3 1 i s one of the chiefa d v o c a t e s of the position represented by the character-formation

2 6 J. L . Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (Bal t imore , Md., 1973)."Ibid., pp. 119-120.2 8 Ibid., p. 122.z 'Bruce C. Birch and Larry L . R a s m u s s e n , Bible and Ethics in the ChristianLife (Minneapolis, 1976), p. 104.3 Ibid. , p. 112."Stanley Hauerwas, "The Moral Authority of Scripture: The Politics and

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

14/92


model. Like Birch and Rasmussen, but in an e v e n stronger w a y , helay s s t r e s s on the communal aspect of character formation. It i s notonly individual character, but the identity of the Christian community, that i s shaped by Scripture. He argues that it i s already adistortion t o e v e n ask how Scripture should be u s e d ethically. Thequestion wrongly a s s u m e s that w e must first cla r i fy t h e meaning ofthe t e x t and then ask i t s moral significance. But Scripture'sauthority for the moral l i fe "consists in i t s being u s e d s o that ithelps to nurture and reform the community's self-identity and t h epersonal character of i t s members." 3 2

According to Hauerwas, Scripture i s not a problem sol ve r ;rather t h e traditions in Scripture provide a means for the community to find new l i fe. 3 3 The Bible's spec i f ic commands arereminders o f the kind o f people w e must be . 3 4There are a number of things that commend this model. I t scommunal emphasis i s a helpful c o r r e c t i v e to the common m o d e lo f the individual decision-maker. Certainly much of the NT ethicalmaterial i s directed toward t h e building up of a community. This

model's emphasis on character also corresponds to the NT emphasisthat being p r e c e d e s doing; t h e good t r e e b ear s good fruit, and th emotive that stands behind t h e act i s significant in God's sight. Inaddition, this model opens t h e w a y for the u s e of all Scriptureitss t o r i e s and images , as w e l l as i t s propositions and rules.On t h e other hand, Christians do face dilemmas, and it i s notclear in this model how one m o v e s from scripturally formedcharacter to a decision in a spec i f ic situation. It may be granteddial Scripture is not simply a problem so lv e r . Still, w e mustwonder i f Scripture's authority i s not diminished too s e v e r e l y whenit d o e s not h a v e more application to the believer's spec i f ic questionsthan this model generally allows.

Ethics of Remembering," Int 34 (1980): 356-370. See also his book, Character andthe Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics ( S a n Antonio, Texas, 1975).3 2 Hauerwas, "Moral Authority," p. 358.

"Ibid., p. 362."Ibid., p. 369.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

15/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 1 3

Model 5: The Bible Is a Resource of Normative ReflectionA f i f th model , w h i c h places S c r i p t u r e in the ro le of b e i n g ar esource of n o r m a t i v e r ef lec t ion, covers a b r oad s p e c t r u m of somew h a t d i v e r s e p o s i t io ns . Ho w e v e r , i t s ad v o c a t e s hold a t l e as t t w obasic e l e m e n t s in co m m o n: Firs t , w h i l e a g r e e i n g that th e r e i s noo n e - t o - o n e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n biblical mater ia l and m a n yc o n t e m p o r a r y d i l e m m as , t h e y also hold that a process of r e f l e c t ionon S c r i p t u r e is e s s e n t ia l to Christian e th ics . Second , t h e y hold thatS c r i p t u r e d o e s p r o v i d e n o r m s , e i t h e r as specif ic ru les or as ge n e r a l

principles or presumptions.This approach is a dvo c a t ed by both biblical scholars ande th ic i s t s . B r e v ar d Childs, a biblical scholar, advocates a process ofre f lec t ion for the purpose of establishing n o r m a t i v e ethics. H er ecogn izes that no s y s t e m leads infallibly f rom the bibl ical warrantto the appropriate dec is ion. E v e n after ref lec t ion, Christians w il ld i s a g r ee and m u s t a v o i d i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r particular positions withthe Christian a n s w e r . 3 5 St i l l , the Bible confes ses that G o d hasm a d e h i s w i l l k n o w n and t es t i f ies also that Christians must seek tod i s c e r n that w i l l in t he c o nc r e t e situations of l ife. 3 6 H e s u mma r i z eshis approach as fol lows:

What w e are suggesting is a p r o c e s s of disciplined theologicalreflection that takes i t s starting point from the ethical i s s u e atstake along with all i t s ambiguities and social complexities ands e e k s to ref lect on the i s s u e in conjunction with th e B ible whichi s s e e n in i t s canonical context. 3 7J am e s Childres s , an ethicis t , has also p r e s e n t e d an argument

for th i s m o d e l . 3 8 H e points out that m o s t of t he r ec en t i n t e r p r e t e r su n d e r e s t i m a t e the importance of S c r i p t u r e by s e e i n g i t primarily int e rms of i n f l u e n c e (i.e., the characte r-format ion mo del ) rather thanr ef lec t ion. 3 9 Yet , t he r e is a n e e d for deliberation a n d the justification

"Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970), p. 136.S 6 Ibid., p. 130."Ibid., p. 133.3 8 James F. Childress, "Scripture and Christian Ethics : S o m e Reflections on theR o l e of Scripture i n Moral Deliberation and Justification," Int 34 (1980): 371-380.3 9 Ibid., p. 371.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

16/92


of actions. W e can and do evaluate spec i f ic actions, and this p r o c e s sof justification in no w a y o b v i a t e s t h e n e e d f o r God's justification. 4 0In this v i e w , Scripture aids in moral justification b e c a u s e i t smoral statements yield principles and ru les which g i v e structure tothe moral l i fe by establishing presumptions in favor of or againstcertain c o u r s e s o f action. A n y exceptions to such presumptions areexpected to bear t h e burden o f proof. For example, Scriptureestablishes a presumption against killing. Although there m a y besituations in which this presumption is rebuttable, an exceptionmust always bear a h e a v y burden of proof. 4 1 Childress suggests thats o m e principles m a y e v e n establish presumptions s o strong thatt h e y will permit no exceptions.Other ethicists h a v e argued for positions similar to this model.John Bennett, for example, speaks of the h e a v y burden of proofthat would be on t h o s e who wish to a d v o c a t e exceptions to certain"strong moral pressures" that Scripture provides. 4 2 Paul Ramseyalso argues that Scripture y i e l d s principles and ru les of practice. 4 3S o m e who probably belong within t h e orbit of our fifth modelwould emphasize a "looser" kind of reflection on Scripture. H. E .Everding and D . M . Wilbanks s t r e s s t h e importance of reflection intheir "response style" of relating the Bib le and e th ics . But t h e yplace more emphasis on reflection with regard to Scripture's imagesand symbols than on establishing rules or principles. 4 4 Gustafsonalso presents this t y p e o f f r e e r approach. Scripture w i t n e s s e s to avariety of moral values and norms. The Christian communityevaluates actions on t h e basis of r e f lec t ive discourse about presente v e n t s in th e light of this variety of biblical materials, thoughScripture alone i s not, according to Gustafson, t h e final court ofappeal. 4 5

'"Ibid., pp. 373-374."'Ibid., pp. 378-380."John C. Bennett, The Radical Imperative: From Theology to Social Ethics

(Philadelphia, 1975), p. 48 ."Paul Ramsey, "The Biblical Norm of Righteousness," Int 2 4 (1970): 41 9 -42 9 ,

especially p. 42 4 ."H. Edward Everding and Dana M . Wilbanks, Decision Making and the Bible(Valley Forge, Pa., 1975).

"Gustafson, pp. 444, 454.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

17/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 1 5The fifth model has in i t s f a v o r the fact that it takes seriously

both t h e need for and the content of Scripture. It also r e c o g n i z e sScripture's diversity and t h e complexity of contemporary moraldilemmas. Through se r ious , disciplined reflection and deliberation,this approach s e e k s to bridge t h e gap b e t w e e n Scripture and themoral l i fe. By identifying principles and rules, it g i v e s specificshape to the process of moral decision-making.This model is , of course , not without i t s difficulties. Theconcept of "reflection" l eaves questions about the specific methodology for moving f r o m t h e t e x t to decision and action. The t i m e -worn question cannot be a v o i d e d : I s reason or revelation in thedriver's seat? What certainty is t h e r e that reflection will lead to ajustifiable decision and not simply to a rationalization? And onwhat grounds can an exception to an established rule or principlebear the burden of proof?

2 . Observations and ConclusionsOur investigation of t h e s e f i v e models has multiplied the

questions. S u c h a result s e e m s inevitable as soon as t h e security ofthe f i r s t model i s abandoned. It would be futile to attempt answerst o all t h e s e questions in the space of this article. W e do, however,wish to offer a f e w methodological proposals drawn largely fromt h e fourth and fifth m o d e l s . In offering t h e s e proposals, w e join t h eemerging consensus that the Bib le i s an essential authority forChristian ethics while t h e particulars of biblical morality are notalways identical to present Christian responsibility.I n our v i e w , a highly important task of t h o s e who wish tomaintain the moral authority of Scripture i s t h e enunciation ofbasic moral norms derived f r o m Scripture. Spec i f ic biblical preceptsmust be scrutinized in an ef for t to ascertain, i f possible, t h eunderlying principles and the basic thrust of God's revealed guidance. The norms thus derived from Scripture n e e d t o be continuallyrestated in language comprehensible to t h e present community offaith. The goal i s a coherent s e t of norms which s e r v e as the faithcommunity's moral action guides. It is in t h e pursuit of this goalthat w e b e l i e v e Christian ethicists and biblical scholars can moste f f e c t i v e l y make common cause .This proposal in no w a y diminishes t h e importance of S c r i p ture as a s o u r c e for enlivening t h e moral imagination and under-

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

18/92

16 JOHN BRUNT A N D G E R A L D WINSLOW

standing, and for fostering moral virtue. W e b e l i e v e that recentattempts to correct an overemphasis on th e Bib le as a problem-solving manual are salutary, for the Bib le obviously contains farmore than propositions about moral obligation. Through its s t o r i e sand s y m b o l s , Scripture informs our moral l i fe in w a y s far richerand more deeply influential than m e r e commands. Indeed, at t h efundamental l eve l of the meaning and grounding of principles, thebiblical s t o r i e s and s y m b o l s , especially the s t o r y of Christ, b e c o m ed e c i s i v e . Through i t s narratives and poetry and metaphors, Scr ipture can sustain the vision of the church by enabling it to remembervividly i t s divine calling. W e would agree with Hauerwas that "themoral significance of Scripture . . . l i es exact ly in i t s power to helpus remember t h e s t o r i e s of God for the continual guidance of ourcommunity and individual l i v e s . " 4 6But , helpful as it is , this renewed emphasis on the Bible as asource of an ethics of virtue m a y lead t o an imbalance. A n ethics ofvirtue uncomplemented by carefully stated principles and rules ofobligation t e n d s to lack sufficient clarity about basic rights andduties. A memorable line f r o m William Frankena m a k e s the n e c e s sary point: "[Principles without traits are impotent, and traitswithout principles are blind." 4 7The inclination to be loving and just, for example, should becomplemented by well-considered principles of l o v e and justice.Character traits, such as sensitivity to others' n e e d s , awaken in usa s e n s e of motivation; and principles of obligation g i v e shape andcoherence to our intentions.

Ethicists and biblical scholars may share in the l i fe of the churchin many w a y s , including t h e recounting of the s a c r e d s to r ies . But iti s also a part of their social role and their special s e r v i c e to thecommunity to assist in the ongoing development of normativeethics. By assisting in this normative task th ey contribute to thecontinuing s tory of a people with a unique calling.

The task of normative e t h i c s can be conducted at various l eve l sof generality from v e r y broad principles through more specificrules to casuistry. At the l eve l of casuistry w e make decisions about

4 6 H a u e r w a s , p. 365."William Frankena, Ethics, 2 d ed . (Englewood Cliffs, N . J., 1973), p. 65. This

comment i s a parody of Kant's well-known statement about concepts and precepts.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

19/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 1 7spec i f ic cases. For example, should M a r y Smith, an impoverishedfifteen-year-old freshman in high sch ool , ge t an abortion? In ourdeliberations w e may appeal to r u l e s such as "Do not murder" orJoseph Fletcher's rule, "[N]o unwanted and unintended b a b yshould e v e r be born." 4 8 W e may also appeal to v e r y generalprinciples such as respect for personal autonomy or respect for l ife.The l ev e l s of generality f r o m cases to broad principles obviouslyf o r m a continuum rather than a s e r i e s of d i s c r e t e c a t e g o r i e s . A rulem a y be formulated s o narrowly that it guides action in only a f e wconceivable cases, w h e r e a s , on the other hand, t h e word "rule" i ss o m e t i m e s u s e d to r e f e r to the most general normative statements,such as the Golden Rule. It is unnecessary for our present purposeto s take out precise conceptual boundaries for "rule" and "principle." 4 9 W e simply follow common u s a g e in which "rule" r e f e r sto r n o s e more specific action guides that determine the T i g h t n e s sor wrongness of particular actions. "Principles," on the otherhand, are far more general. They provide justification for the morespecific rules, and t h e y provide guidance for the method of moraldecision-making. With this understanding of the t e r m s , the GoldenRule is obviously a principle.It might s e e m desirable i f the moral authority of Scripturecould always enter in an unambiguous w a y at the l eve l of casuistry.The advantages of casuistry a r e fairly obvious. Life a r r i v e s case bycase. For some of the same reasons that many people would preferwatching soap operas to reading Aristotle's ethics, cases tend tocapture our moral attention. The apparent c o n c r e t e n e s s of decisionsat this l ev e l i s appealing. And, if w e can find what w e take to be anormative decision in a case v e r y much like our own, w e may havea spec ia l s e n s e of secur i ty ; t h e guidance i s reassuringly spec i f ic .Little distance may appear b e t w e e n the authoritative decision andthe decision w e must m a k e .But, as anyone who has studied the Bib le k n o w s , it i s not abook full of casuistry. The biblical s t o r i e s do not generally end

"Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia, 1966),p. 39 ."For a helpful discussion of t h e conceptual difficulties with "rule" and"principle" see Dorothy Emmet, Rules, Roles and Relations ( N e w Y ork , 1967), pp.48-49.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

20/92


with carefully drawn "morals." A n d w e may be just as happy thatd i e y do not. A casuistic approach to ethics, as the study of traditional moral theology, can b e c o m e exceedingly cumbersome.Christian casuists have filled countless library s h e l v e s in an attemptto be precise and offe r spec i f ic guidance. B u t e v e r y case is at least alittle different. And all t h e libraries on earth could not hold theworks n e c e s s a r y to a d d r e s s t h e details of e v e r y moral contingency.Almost inevitably, the human capacity to grasp reasonable generalizations b a s e d on a number of similar cases l eads to the establishment of rules and principles. Indeed, t h e r e is considerable e v i d e n c ethat, within the ordinary c o u r s e of human cognitive development,people come to prefer principled thought i f and when t h e y arecapable of i t . 5 0Although the numerous biblical s t o r i e s do not typicallymoralize in the w a y o f traditional casuistry, t h e y do providenormative guidance by giving both negative and positive illustrations. Take, for example, Peter's vision of the unclean animals andhis encounter with Cornelius, recorded in A c t s 10. The s t o r y g i v e sf ew , i f any, explicit rules or principles. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the potentialmoral impact o f the s t o r y i s considerable. A s w e learn how Godsought to overcome Peter's prejudice, our own prejudice is mademore vulnerable to the conquest of God's grace. A t this l eve l (andin many w a y s it may be t h e most profound) the s t o r y may affectour character by altering our perceptions of the world.Through reflection, t h e s t o r y m a y also g i v e r i s e to principles.It would be disappointing i f the largest normative insight derivedfrom t h e story went something l ike th is: I f e v e r you thrice r e c e i v e avision of unclean animals, be s u r e to g r e e t your Gentile guestscordially. Although no larger principle i s made explicit, one canemerge upon reflection. When, for example, Peter c onfesse s to hisGentile host, "Truly I p e r c e i v e that God s h o w s no partiality; ...( A c t s 10:34, R S V ) , the b as i s for a principle i s uncovered. All peopleare equally deserving of the Christian's fundamental respect andconcern. This principle of impartiality, s o crucial to a s e n s e ofjustice, i s given l i fe through a new vision of an impartial God.

5 0 Here, we are thinking of the work of Lawrence Kohlberg, James Rest, andother cognitive-developmental theorists who have studied moral judgment. S e e , e.g.,Lawrence Kohlberg, "Education for Justice: A Modern Statement of the PlatonicView," in Moral Education (Cambridge, Mass., 1970) .

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

21/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 1 9W e are not suggesting that the principles which should emerge

from reflection on t h e biblical s t o r i e s and rules are a l w a y s , or e v e ngenerally, obvious to us. What principle w a s at s take, for example,when God's people w e r e admonished to exchange the tithe form o n e y and b u y "whatever y o u d e s i r e , oxen, or sheep , or wine orstrong drink, whatever your appetite craves; . .." (Deut 14:26)?S o m e t i m e s , scholarship may be helpful in determining the princip les involved, as in t h e case of another rule from the s a m echapterthe prohibition of boiling a goat in i t s mother's milk(vs. 21), d i s c o v e r e d to have b e e n a Canaanite religious r i t e . Inother instances, however, it m a y be that no amount o f modernscholarship will be able sufficiently to acquaint us with the intentof such rules s o that inferences m a y be drawn at the l eve l ofprinciples. It is our contention, n e v e r t h e l e s s , that i f such biblicalrules a r e e v e r t o have normative value for us, it will be b e c a u s e w ehave unpacked their original purpose and found some principledmeaning. A t t i m e s , this may be more a p r o c e s s of ascertainingwhere God w a s leading a people than discovering where t h e y hadalready arrived. The OT l a w s governing s l a v e r y and polygamy a r eexamples (see, e.g., Exod 21:2, 10-11; L e v 25:44-45). They areprobably b e t t e r understood as attempts to m o v e God's people int h e direction of respect for all persons than as expressions of God'sideals for human beings.Finally, Scripture speaks to us explicitly at t h e l eve l of broadprinciples. Once heard and understood, such principles b e c o m e thegreat summary statements of the Christian's s e n s e of obligation. Ithas e v e r b e e n a part of the prophetic role to shift t h e primaryattention of God's people beyond t h e particularities of the religiousand moral l i f e to a vision of fundamental principles. W e mayconsider, for example, Micah's memorable poetic question:

H e h a s showed y o u , O man, what is g o o d ;and what does the LORD require of youbut to do justice, and to l o v e kindness,and to walk humbly with your G o d ?(Micah 6:8, R S V )

H e r e , Micah contrasts basic principles of human action withan earlier stated list of specific duties which people might haveconsidered binding. In similar fashion, Jesus contrasts the Phari-

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

22/92


saical concern for detailed duties with what he calls the "weightiermatters of the law, justice and m e r c y and faith" (Matt 23:23, R S V ) .The spec i f ic actions (e.g., tithing v e r y small amounts) may bepermissible or e v e n praiseworthy. But without reference to t h elarger principles at stake, such actions b e c o m e little more thandisjointed, legalistic exe r c i se s . The "weightier matters," or basicprinciples, g i v e c o h e r e n c e , shape, and meaning to the more spec i f icaspects of Christian obligation.

Such principles provide base points in our moral deliberations.Like navigational a i d s u s e d by ships or planes, principles act asbeacons to guide the charting of spec i f ic courses of action. Putanother w a y , principles d e r i v e d from Scripture g i v e us basic biasesfor or against particular c o u r s e s of action.The language of "moral presumption" and "burden of proof"i s fitting in this regard. 5 1 S u c h language may sound o v e r l y juridical,but as an illustration of th e function of principles it is helpful.Principles establish presumptions in favor of certain t y p e s ofactions and against others. Exceptions are required to bear t h eburden of proof. A n obvious illustration is the Anglo-Americanlegal presumption of innocence. A person indicted for a crime ispresumed to be innocent. The burden of proof is on those whowould argue for guilt. Clearly, the presumption could have b e e nestablished in the opposite w a y . And s i n c e people are generallyguilty of s o m e kind of wrongdoing, it might s e e m more reasonableto fix the presumption in fav or of guilt. But t h e long-establishedpresumption of innocence is l ike ly to remainand for goodr e a s o n s . Reflection and experience have taught us that t h e presumption i s in the s e r v i c e of justice. Exceptions to the presumptionshould not be accepted without clear and ample reasons. If, af tercareful consideration, doubt remains about t h e exception, t h emoral presumption stands.Thorough reflection on t h e biblical material can yield acoherent se t o f principles as moral presumptions. The examplesare numerous. There are strong biblical presumptions in favor ofhuman equality, covenant loyal ty , integrity, and peace . And thereare many more. It is not our purpose h e r e to present arguments for

5 1 This usage has b e e n adopted by many ethicists. A r e c e n t , notable example isJ. Philip Wogaman, A Christian Method of Moral Judgment (Philadelphia, 1976).

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

23/92

B I B L E ' S R O L E I N C H R I S T I A N E T H I C S 2 1t h e s e examples. Each d e s e r v e s i t s own careful statement of derivation and elaboration. In t h e final analysis, e v e r y such principler e f lec t s an attempt to formulate clear ly our response to God's lov e .

For t h e Christian, the centerpiece of all such principles is theprinciple of agape love. Much of moral philosophy and moraltheology c an be characterized as an attempt to condense all normsinto a single, master principle. For biblical faith, t h e master normi s die principle of agape. The summary statements of l o v e for Godand for human beings which Jesus quotes f r o m the OT 5 2 areechoed in t h e writings of many subsequent authors. A s Paulreminds us in Rom 13:9-10, "The commandments . . . are summedup in this sentence, 'You shall l o v e your neighbor as yourself.'L o v e d o e s no wrong to a neighbor; therefore l o v e i s the fulfilling oft h e law" ( R S V ) . 5 3L o v e , especially as s e e n in the l i fe and teachings of Jesus, i sthe final t e s t by which t h e validity and coherence o f all l e s se rprinciples, rules, and casuistry must be measured. Still, it i s as trueto s a y that the principle of agape "needs" the other principles andrules as it is to s a y that t h e y "need" agape. Without the s tor i e s ,rules, and other principles, l o v e b e c o m e s an amorphous notion.Without lov e , the other l e v e l s of normative discourse lack focusand unity. It is the continual exploration of this dialectic which i sthe enduring task of Christian normative e th ics . And it is anexploration which can be guided at e v e r y s t e p by the light whichshines f r o m Scripture.

5 2 Matt 22:23-40; cf. Deut 6:5 and L e v 19:18.5 3 Compare the mirroring of the s a m e central truth in r e c e n t t i m e s by Ellen G .W h it e , The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan (Mountain V i e w , Calif.,1911), p. 487: "It is l o v e alone which in the sight of Heaven m a k e s any actof value."

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

24/92

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

25/92

Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1982, Vol. 20, No. 1 , 23-28.Copyr ight 1 9 8 2 by A n d r e w s U n i v e rs it y P r e s s .

LUKE 4:31-44: RELEASE FOR THE CAPTIVESG E O R G E E . R I C EA n d r e w s University

In an earlier study, 1 I presented t h e programmatic nature oft h e passage ( I sa 61:1,2; 58:6) which Jesus r e a d in the synagogue atNazareth (Luke 4:16-19). A t that time I suggested that Luke u s e sthe pericopes that immediately follow (4:31-6:11) thematically s o asto interpret t h e passage from Isaiah. Luke understands the OTpassage to be a proclamation of r e lease that will be achievedthrough the ministry of Jesus. Thus w e have r e l e a s e from (1)Satan's power (4: 31-44), (2) the power of s i n (5:1-32), and (3) cultictraditions (5:33-6:11).

In t h e earlier study I dealt with the motif of r e lease from sin,concentrating mainly on the chronological rearrangement and thediffering account of t h e call of t h e first disciples. In t h e presents t u d y , I will d e a l with the first of th e three blocks of interpretivematerialrelease from Satan's power (4:31-44).

1 . The Isaiah Scroll and Luke 4:31-44Although the majority of commentators s ee Luke's u s e of the

Isaiah scroll as being programmatic, f e w t i e the healing miraclesthat immediately follow in 4:31-44 to t h e program of ministryoutlined in the Isaiah passage.O f t h e s e f ew , s o m e imply t h e relationship only. John Drury,for instance, s t a t e s that Luke's overall plan i s to show "themanifesto" in the Isaianic passage as "working i t s e l f out in wordand action." 2 E . J. Tinsley m a k e s a similar comment, i .e., thesovereignty of God is a c t i v e in his kingdom and disclosed in "thecontent and manner of the actions and words of Jesus."3 G . B.

'George E . R i c e , "Luke's Thematic U s e of the Call to Discipleship," AUSS, 19(1981) : 51-58.2 John D r u r y , Luke ( N e w Y o r k , 1973), pp. 58-59.3 E . J. Tinsley, The Gospel According to Luke (Cambridge, Eng., 1965), p. 57.

23

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

26/92

24 GEORGE E. RICE

Caird points to t h e exorcisms of Jesus in 4:31-41 as the "preliminaryskirmishes in the campaign to be waged by him on behalf of thekingdom of God against t h e kingdom of Satan," 4 while LeonMorris holds that the exorcisms in this section of Luke are e v i d e n c eof "God's rule in action," and that "God's kingdom had reallycome." 5

Other writers are more spec i f ic about the exorcisms and healings that follow the programmatic statement of Isaiah. FrederickDanker o b s e r v e s sev e r a l t i m e s in the course of his commentary on4:31-44 that the exorcisms of Jesus w e r e an act o f freeing t h ec a p t i v e s of Satan and thus w e r e in line with the program announcedat Nazareth. 6 Helen K e n i k remarks that Jesus' authority o v e rdemons and d i s e a s e s (4:31-44) is intended by Luke to "be read inline with the vision of conditions in the Kingdom which Jesusidentified with his mission when he r e a d from t h e scroll." 7

Recognizing Luke 4:31-44 as the first of three blocks of materialused to interpret the prophecy of Isaiah, I wish to comment on fouraspects of this passage: (1) Luke's u s e of the exorcism in thesynagogue at Capernaum (4:31-44), (2) the manner in which Jesushealed Peter's mother-in-law (4:38,39), (3) t h e proclamation of th edemons who w e r e e x o r c i s e d (4:40,41), and (4) t h e n e c e s s i t y for Jesusto preach "the good n e w s concerning t h e kingdom of God"(4:42-44).

2. The Demoniac at CapernaumIt is generally noted by commentators that at 4:31 Luke picks

up "the Marcan material." This viewpoint assumes Marcan priorityand takes Lucan indebtedness to Mark for granted. It is not m ypurpose to argue sources , but rather to look at the material in Lukeand to s e e how it i s t r e a t e d .

< G . B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (Bal t imore , Md., 1963), pp. 88- 89.5 Leon M o r r i s , The Gospel According to St. Luke (Westminster, Md., 1958),

p. 111.'Frederick W . Danker, Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke (St. Louis,Mo., 1972), pp. 62-63.'Helen K e n i k , "Messianic Fulfillment in Luke," The Bible Today, 18 (1980):

236-241.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

27/92

L U K E 4 : R E L E A S E F O R T H E C A P T I V E S 25

There is no question in m y mind that the presence of theIsaiah scroll in Luke cas ts "the Marcan material," i f you will, into aLucan mold (h e re Luke 4:31-44). Subsequent changes made byLuke in this material strengthen i t s identity with him. Theexorcism at Capernaum, although containing minor alterations,c l o s e l y parallels the account in Mark (1:21-28). However, the readingof the Isaiah scroll immediately preceding this pericope demandsthat w e understand this exorcism in a Lucan milieu.

In Mark, the exorcism in the synagogue at Capernaum followsc lose ly his introductory statement concerning the Galilean mini s t r y : "When John had been imprisoned, Jesus came into Galileeproclaiming the good n e w s of God, saying, 'The time is fulfilledand the kingdom of God is h e r e [ f jyy iKEv] ; repent and b e l i e v e inthis good news'" (Mark 1:14,15). The burden of the exorcism atCapernaum i s to validate Jesus' proclamation about the presence oft h e kingdom.

In Luke, the comment of Jesus about t h e Isaiah prophecy,"Today this scripture i s fulfilled in your hearing" (4:21), introducesthe element of th e present kingdom. However, although Luke is int e r e s t e d in this element, at this point in his narrative it i s not hismajor concern. Rather, Luke d e s i r e s to identify s o m e of the characteristics of t h e kingdom for his r e a d e r s so t h e y can understand i t snature, and the nature of th e one who claims to be i t s king. A t alater point Luke will deal with the kingdom's presence (e.g.,10:9,11; 11:20; 17:21).Therefore, the exorcism at Capernaum in Luke must be understood in a different context man in Mark. In Luke t h e exorcism i s afulfillment of Isaiah's prediction that the M e s s i a h would bringr e l e a s e to the captives of Satan. Rather than being a proclamationof the presence of the kingdom, as it is in Mark, it is a statement onwhat the kingdom and i t s king offer to those who are willing tobecome i t s c i t izens .

3. The Healing of Peter s Mother-in-lawLuke's account of die e v e n t s that followed t h e exorcism in d i e

synagogue is s e e n a s adding to t h e motif of r e lease from Satan'spower. A t 4:38,39, Jesus l e f t d i e synagogue and entered Simon'shouse. Here he found Simon's mother-in-law stricken by a high

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

28/92

26 G E O R G E E . R I C E

f ev e r . A comparison with t h e parallels s h o w s the emphasis ofLuke's interestrelease f r o m the captivity of Satan.Whereas at Matthew 8:15 Jesus healed t h e woman by simplytouching her hand, and at Mark 1:31 he s e i zed her hand and raisedher up, in Luke Jesus stood o v e r her and a d d r e s s e d the f ev e r asthough it p o s s e s s e d intelligence, or w a s caused by an intelligentbeing (vs. 39). But William Hendriksen and A l f r e d Plummer ar enot willing to admit that the f ev e r is a personal agent. 8 William F.Arndt, I . Howard Marshall, and John M . C r e e d s e e the rebuke as aninstance of personification. 9

There are t h o s e who regard t h e verba l rebuke given by Jesus asindicating that the f e v e r w a s "a demonic effect ," 1 0 "a demon to bebrought under control," 1 1 "a living creature, t h e f e v e r demon," 1 2"a form of demon-possession," 1 3 or a "healing . . . within theperspective of the exorcism recorded in vv . 31-37." uI f one d o e s not wish to speak of this f ev e r in t e r m s of "a livingcreature, the f e v e r demon," as Dillersberger d o e s , it is permissibleto speak of it as an instrument of Satan by which he tormentshuman beings (cf. Luke speaking of t h e deformed woman at 13:10-17as tormented by the binding of Satan). In freeing the sufferer ,Jesus rebuked the s o u r c e of the illness and wrenched the victimfrom his power. The intention of Luke s e e m s to be clear: Thismiracle illustrates Jesus' power to f r ee t h e c a p t i v e s from Satan'spower.

'William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (GrandRapids, Mich., 1978), p. 268; A l f r e d Plummer, A Critical an d Exegetical Commentaryof the Gospel According to St. Luke (Edinburgh, 1913), p. 137.

'William F. Arndt, The Gospel According to St. Luke (St. Louis, Mo., 1956),p. 148; I . Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary of the Greek Text(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1978), p. 195; John Martin Cre e d , The Gospel According toSt. Luke (London, 1960), p. 71 .

'"Danker, p. 62 ."Drury, p. 59 .'"Joseph Dillersberger, The Gospel of St. Luke ( W e s t m i n s t e r , Md., 1958),

p. 190.1 3 Tinsley, p. 56."Frederick W . Danker, Luke: Proclamation Commentaries (Philadelphia, 1976),p. 91. ,

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

29/92

L U K E 4: R E L E A S E F O R T H E C A P T I V E S 27

4. The Demons Identification of the MessiahThe pericope closes with t h e report of Jesus exorcising many

demons and healing the s ick. The e x o r c i s e d demons identifiedJesus , crying out, "You are t h e S o n of God" (vs. 41). S o m e commentators s e e Jesus' rebuke which silenced t h e demons' announcement asa reflection of Mark's messianic s ec re t . 1 5 Others simply interpret therebuke as e v i d e n c e that Jesus did not want demonic powers proclaiming his mission. 1 6H o w e v e r , the fact remains that Luke does mention that thedemons speak and identify Jesus before t h e y a r e s i l e n c e d . I f Lukewould h a v e b e e n interested in maintaining t h e messianic secre t , hecould simply h a v e written something similar to Mark, "and he didnot permit t h e demons to speak b e c a u s e t h e y k n e w him" (Mark1:34), or he could have omitted completely any suggestion that thedemons attempted to identify Jesus , as d o e s Matthew (8:16), thusleaving the demons silent.The fact that Luke includes t h e detail about the demonsproclaiming Jesus' divine sonship would indicate that the authoris interested in this testimony. The demonic announcement at 4:41,coupled with the statement of t h e demon in t h e synagogue atCapernaum ("I know who you are, t h e Holy one of God," 4:34),identifies as divine the person and t h e power that fulfill the stipulations of t h e Isaiah scroll, i .e., r e lease for the c a p t i v e s .

5. Proclamation of the Kingdom of GodThe first block of interpretive material (5:31-44) concludes

with a summary statement (vss. 42-44). When the people of Capernaum attempted to restrain him from leaving them, Jesus answered,"It is n e c e s s a r y for me to proclaim t h e good n e w s concerning thekingdom of God in other c i t i e s also" (vs. 43). The statement i sunique to Luke and must be read in conjunction with the motif of

1 5 Wilfrid J. Harrington, A Commentary: The Gospel According to St. Luke( N e w Y o r k , 1967), p. 90; J. Alexander Findlay, The Gospel According to St. Luke(London, 1937), p. 65 .

1 6 Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 63; Arndt, pp. 148-149; Marshall, p. 197;Caird, p. 89; Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary On the Gospel of Luke (GrandRapids, Mich., 1954), p. 177.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

30/92

28 GEORGE E. RICE

r e lease . In the context of Luke's interpretation of the Isaiah scrollto this point, the "good n e w s concerning t h e kingdom of God" i sr e lease f r o m the captivity of Satan as demonstrated by healings,and especially by e x o r c i s m s . 1 7

6. ConclusionThe programmatic nature of t h e Isaiah scroll for the ministryof Jesus w a s noted in an earlier s t u d y . There I noted that t h e reloca

tion and differing account of the call of the first disciples introducesthe s e c o n d of three blocks of material in which Luke interprets t h eIsaiah scroll. That s e c o n d block of material, which begins with thecall of the first disciples and e n d s with the call of L e v i (5:1-32), s h o w show Jesus brings r e l e a s e from the power of sin.The present study dea l s with t h e f i r s t block of interpretivematerial (4:31-44) and s h o w s how Jesus d e l i v e r s from the captivityof Satan through healings, and especially e x o r c i s m s .In the third block of interpretive material (5:33-6:11), Lukeshows how Jesus liberates from cultic traditions. This topic will bepresented in a future s t u d y .

"I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids, Mich.,1970), p. 137; D a n k e r , p. 63; K e n i k , p. 239.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

31/92

Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1982, Vol. 20, No. 1 , 29-52.Copyright 1 9 8 2 by A n d r e w s U n i v e rs it y P r e s s .

DANIEL 3: EXTRA-BIBLICAL TEXTS A N D THECONVOCATION ON THE PLAIN OF DURA

WILLIAM H . S H E AA n d r e w s UniversityCommentaries on Daniel h a v e frequently separated th e h i s

torical chapters (1, 3-6) f r o m t h e prophetic chapters (2, 7-12) andattributed t h e former to an earlier origin as far as their historicalcontext i s concerned. When one looks for a political context withwhich to connect one of the historical chapters, therefore, the N e o -Babylonian period presupposed in s o m e o f them d e s e r v e s consideration along with the later periods. The purpose o f this study isto suggest that when such consideration is g i v e n t o chap. 3, t w oNeo-Babylonian t e x t s provide a relatively reasonable context withwhich to connect this remarkable e p i s o d e .

The third chapter of Daniel te l ls how Shadrach, Meshach, andAbed-Nego refused to b o w down to t h e great image which Nebuchadnezzar had se t up on the plain of Dura. Nebuchadnezzarplaced the image t h e r e and then summoned all of Babylonianofficialdom to i t s dedication. A s a part of that dedication, t h eofficials assembled w e r e t o b o w down to t h e image and worship i t .A s officials in the Babylonian government, Shadrach, Meshaeh,and Abed-Nego w e r e also summoned to this s c e n e , but t h e y refusedto perform the obeisance required. Looking at this s c e n e from thehistorian's point of v i e w r a i s e s the question of what this s c e n e w a sabout in t h e first place. What w a s involved f r o m the Babylonianpoint of v i e w ?

'J. G . Gammie, "The Classification, S t a t e s of Growth, and Changing Intentionsin the Book of Daniel," JBL 95 (1976): 191-204; H . L . Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel( N e w Y o r k , 1948), pp. 27-40; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book ofDaniel, Harvard Semitic Monographs, No. 16 (Missoula , Mo., 1977), p. 11.

29

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

32/92

30 WILLIAM H . S H E A

1 . The Loyalty-Oath Nature of the Convocationon the Plain of DuraOne p i e c e of e v i d e n c e pointing toward t h e nature of themeeting is to be found, in m y opinion, in t h e list of persons inattendance. S e v e n different classes of Babylonian officials are listed

in Dan 3:2-3, and e v e r y b o d y included w a s s o m e sort of official inthe Babylonian government. The list s e e m s well-nigh all-inclusive.It appears, then, that this s e r v i c e w a s conducted specifically for allof Babylonian officialdom, and that Shadrach, Meshach, and A b e d -Nego only incidentally happened to be present by virtue of belonging to that group.Having identified t h e nature of the persons who w e r e inattendance, w e must next look at what t h e y w e r e required to doduring this ceremony, s i n c e their actions may g i v e indication ofwhat w a s involved in this se rv ice . They w e r e required to bow downto and worship the image that Nebuchadnezzar had se t up. Theimage could have b e e n one of Nebuchadnezzar himself, but its e e m s more l ike ly that it would h a v e b e e n an image of Marduk, thegod of Babylon. By bowing down to t h e image and worshiping i t ,a person would also pledge allegiance and loyalty to it and what itrepresented. In a certain s e n s e , th e re fore , this s c e n e could be v i e w e das a loyalty oath on the part of all of th e c iv i l s e r v a n t s of B a b y l o n .W hy would such a loyalty oath h a v e b e e n administered tothem? The most obvious and l ike ly reason is that s o m e of t h e s eofficials either had b e e n disloyal to Nebuchadnezzar, or were suspected of having b e e n disloyal, at s o m e time b efore t h e y w e r esummoned to this ceremony. On this basis , w e might w e l l look forevidence of a rebellion in Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar's reignas the background for the c e r e m o n y .Prior to t h e publication of Nebuchadnezzar's chronicle, only ahint of such a rebellion w a s known from historical sour c es , and hisreign appeared to have b e e n one monolithic and undisputed rulein Babylon for all of the 43 y e a r s of his kingship. This picture haschanged, h o w e v e r , with t h e publication of his chronicle, whoseentry for the y e a r 5 9 5 / 5 9 4 B . C . s ta t e s ,

21. In the tenth y e a r the king o f A k k a d (was ) in his ownland; from th e month of K i s l e v to the month o f Tebetthere w a s rebellion in A k k a d ....

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

33/92

DANIEL 3: E X T R A - B I B L I C A L T E X T S 31

22. .............. with arms he s l e w many o f h i s o w n a r m y . Hisown hand captured h i s e n e m y . 2The hint that such a revolt had occurred w a s previously

known from a contract tablet .What m a y be an indirect indication of the revolt is given by acontract tablet from B a b y l o n dated in the eleventh y e a r o f Nebuchadrezzar. This t e l l s of the confiscation and disposal of theproperty o f Baba-ahu-iddina, son of Nabu-ahhe-bullit, who hadb e e n tried by court-martial and, on being found guilty of breakingthe royal oath and of insurrection, had b e e n condemned to deathand e x e c u t e d . S i n c e Nabu-ahhe-bullit had r e c e iv e d t he s e lands asa special favour from Nabopolassar it m a y w e l l be that his sonw a s o f sufficient status to be th e l e a d e r of the revolt mentioned inthe Chronicle for this y ear . 3S i n c e the revolt recorded in the chronicle occurred late in

Nebuchadnezzar's 1 0 t h y e a r and this contract tablet w a s written inhis llth y ear , the e v e n t s referred to in t h e s e t w o t ex t s most likelyw e r e related. Exactly how long this revolt l a s t e d is not statedspecifically in the chronicle, but it c o v e r e d parts of two months.The army appears to h a v e b e e n t h e s o u r c e o f this trouble ratherthan t h e off icials in government. The chronicle s ta t e s that "many"in the army w e r e slain at this t i m e , which s e e m s to indicate thatthis revolt w a s more than just a small-scale affair . In fact, t h eproblem w a s sufficiently serious for t h e king to be involved inhand-to-hand combat. The r e f e r e n c e to t h e enemy whom Nebuchadnezzar captured with his own hand has b e e n interpreted asreferring to t h e unidentified r e b e l leader . S i n c e t h e chronicle onlys ta t e s that Nebuchadnezzar captured him and not that he killedhim, i t i s possible that this r e b e l l e a d e r w a s bound o v e r t o t h e trialr e f e r r e d to in t h e contract tablet from t h e next y e a r .I f t h e record of this revolt in t h e chronicle w e r e the sole pieceof e v i d e n c e available for proposing a relationship b e t w e e n thatrevolt and t h e e v e n t s of Dan 3 as a consequence of i t , t h e case for

2 D . J. W i s e m an , Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the BritishMuseum (London, 1956), p. 73.

3 Ibid, p. 37.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

34/92


such a relationship would not b e v e r y strong. One could argue, inthis case, that the occurrence of a revolt in Nebuchadnezzar's reignw a s only chanceand a rather good statistical chance at that, inv i e w of how long he reigned. Other p i e c e s o f e v i d e n c e that supportsuch a relationship are available, h o w e v e r , from both biblical andBabylonian sour c es .

2 . Biblical Indication of the Revolt against NebuchadnezzarThe biblical s o u r c e in this case is Jer 51:59-64. This r e fe r s to

the prophetic scroll against Babylon that Jeremiah g a v e to Seraiahto take t o Babylon when t h e latter accompanied king Z e d e k i a hth ere . Upon his arrival in Babylon, according to Jeremiah'sinstructions, Seraiah w a s to read all th e words of th e scroll againstBabylon and then cast it into th e Euphrates bound with a s t o n e asa symbol of the fact that Babylon w a s t o sink and no more r i s eagain. The prophecy i t se l f is a s i d e point here, s i n c e our particularinterest i s the fact that Z e d e k i a h made a trip to Babylon in t h e 4thy e a r of his reign.W hy did Zedekiah h a v e to make this trip? The text d o e s notanswer this question, but the overarching reason undoubtedly w a sto insure that Zedekiah would continue to s e r v e Nebuchadnezzar asa loyal vassal . This concern on Nebuchadnezzar's part may h a v earisen for any one of s e v e r a l r e a s o n s : (1) Z e d e k i a h may have failedto pay his share of th e tribute that Nebuchadnezzar collected in t h ew e s t af te r the revolt had b e e n put down, but i f that w e r e t h e case,Zedekiah might h a v e b e e n punished more s ev e re ly ; (2) Z e d e k i a hmight have b e e n suspect for other r e a s o n s ; (3) all of Nebuchadne zzar 's v assa ls in the w e s t might h a v e b e e n suspect, with Z e d e k i a hsimply included in diose suspicions. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar may not have had any reason to suspect his western vassals ,but simply wanted to make s u r e that t h e y did not get any e n couragement to revolt bec ause of th e revolt that had taken placeagainst him on his home ground in B a b y l o n . Whatever m a y h a v ebeen t h e precise reason for Zedekiah's t rave l to Babylon, it i s clearthat he returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, for he ruled o v e rJudah for another s e v e n y ear s be for e Nebuchadnezzar finallybrought his kingdom and reign to an e n d .

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

35/92


Thus there i s s o m e supplementary e v i d e n c e f r o m Jer 51:59-64that soon after t h e revolt r e f e r r e d to by t h e chronicle, Nebuchadnezzar attempted to insure t h e l o y a l t y of the kings who w e r e v a s s a lto him. A comparison of the d a t e s connected with t h e s e two eventspoints up this fact. The chronicle d a t e s t h e revolt in Babylon in the9th and 10 th months of Nebuchadnezzar's 1 0 t h y ear , or D e c e m b e rof 595 and January of 5 94 B . C . Zedekiah's trip to Babylon occurredin his 4th y ear , according to Jer 51:59. Nebuchadnezzar installedZ e d e k i a h on t h e throne of Judah in A d a r , 597 B . C . ReckoningZedekiah's regnal y e a r s from t h e fall da tes , his first full official y e a rof reign commenced in the fall of 597 B . C . 4 This means that the 4thy e a r of his reign, when Z e d e k i a h journeyed to Babylon , began inthe fall of 59 4 B . C . , or a little les s than a y ea r af te r th e revolt againstNebuchadnezzar had taken place.

Given the close chronological collocation of th ese two e v e n t s ,it s e e m s reasonable to connect them as cause and effect . Thus,Zedekiah's t r a v e l to Babylon would h a v e occurred as a result ofNebuchadnezzar's attempt to insure Zedekiah's loyalty followingt h e r e v o l t in Babylon.

The passage in Jeremiah d o e s not mention the month o f they e a r in which Zedekiah le f t for Babylon , but a refinement in thatdate can be suggested on the b as i s of information available fromt h e chronicle. A t the end of Nebuchadnezzar's 10th y e a r (59575 94 B.C.), the year in which the revolt in Babylon occurred, he made atrip w e s t t o collect the tribute f r o m his western vassals . Thechronicle d o e s not r e fe r to t h e army as accompanying him at thatt i m e , and D . J. Wiseman interprets this to mean that he le f t most ofhis forces at home. 5 I s it possible that Nebuchadnezzar le f t his armyin Babylon at that time to insure t h e stability of t h e situation thereso soon after t h e revolt against him had b e e n s u p pr e s s e d ?In any e v e n t , Nebuchadnezzar did take th e army with him onhis next campaign w e s t in his llth y e a r (594/ 593 B . C . ) , and such ashow of force could have provided an added inducement for the

< F o r the identification of the fall-to-fall calendar as the one in use during thelast years of the kings of Judah s e e S . H. Horn, "The Babylonian Chronicle and theAncient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah," AUSS 5 (1967): 12-27.

5 W i se m an , p. 36.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

36/92


vassal kings in the w e s t to accompany him back to Babylon topledge their allegiance to him. Nebuchadnezzar le f t Babylon witht h e army on this campaign in K i s l e v or D e c e m b e r of 59 4 B.C., l e s sthan two months after the fall N e w Y e a r that began Zedekiah's 4thregnal y ear . From the convergence of t h e s e chronological factors,w e can surmise that Z e d e k i a h and other western vassal s who mayhave accompanied him w e r e e s c o r t e d to Babylon by t h e army earlyin 5 93 B.C., which was also early in Zedekiah's 4th year of 5947593 B.C., fall-to-fall reckoning.

The movement in favor of revolt that a r o s e in the w e s t at thistime can be s e e n , in part, as a response to the revolt againstNebuchadnezzar in B a b y l o n . A s far as Zedekiah's first four y e a r s ofreign are concerned, t h e r e i s little reason to suspect that Zedekiahw a s anything other than loyal to Nebuchadnezzar. The first information w e h a v e about him af te r his return f r o m Babylon, h o w e v e r ,is that he hosted a conference in Jerusalem for e n v o y s from thekings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon, who came to plotrebellion against their Babylonian master (Jer 27). Jeremiahbrought the m e s s a g e t o t h e s e e n v o y s and th e kings who had sentthem that t h e y should submit to Nebuchadnezzar and not revoltagainst him. This political c o n f e r e n c e i s dated "in the beginningof the reign of Zedekiah," which should be narrowed down to his4th y ear , according to t h e dateline on t h e succeeding chapter whichconnects it with chap. 27"In that s a m e year , at the beginning ofthe reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in t h e fifth month of thefourth year" (Jer 28:1). The formula d a t e s both of t h e s e chapters inZedekiah's 4th year , with t h e e v e n t s d e s c r i b e d i n chap. 27 probablyoccurring shortly b efore those in chap. 2 8 which w e r e dated to the5th month. 6 I f this interpretation i s correc t , t h e conference probablyw a s convened in the la te spring or summer of 593 B.C., according toa fall-to-fall year , after Zedekiah's return from Babylon. Althoughthat trip w a s intended to insure his loyal ty , it appears t o h a v e hadthe opposite effect . With a revolt having occurred in the e a s t andanother one brewing in t h e w e s t , it is no wonder that Hananiahprophesied a return of t h e e x i l e s t o Jerusalem within t w o y e a r s(Jer 28:3).

6 J. Bright, Jeremiah, Anchor Bible, vol. 21 (Garden City, N.Y., 1965), p. 195 .

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

37/92


The role that Egypt played in t h e s e affairs should be noted.Psammetichus II c a m e to the throne in 59 5 B . C . and brought withhim a n e w policy toward the rulers in Phoenicia and Palestine. 7 Bydie end of October of 5 93 B . C . w e find Psammetichus waiting atElephantine, where he r e c e i v e d the first n e w s of v i c t o r y from hisexpedition to Nubia. 8 A s i d e from Egyptian regulars and Greekmercenaries, t h e r e w e r e also "men of other tongues" with thatexpedition, as indicated in an inscription from A b u Simbel andconfirmed by the presence of Semitic names written in Phoenicianscript among the graffiti t h e r e . 9 It has b e e n f o r c e f u l l y argued thatt h e J e w s who "had b e e n s e n t out to fight in the army of Psammetichus against the king of th e Ethiopians," r e f e r r e d to in theLetter of A r i s t e a s , w e r e sent to fight under Psammetichus I I insteadof Psammetichus I . 1 0 It is possible, then, that Tyrians, Sidonians,and Judahites (and M oab i te s , Ammonites, and E d o m i t e s ? ) w e r efighting with Psammetichus' army in Nubia by t h e end of 593 B . C .I f so, the decision to s e n d them must h a v e b e e n made earlier thaty ear , perhaps at the meeting in Jerusalem or as a result of thatc o n f e r e n c e .

In such case, it is not surprising that Psammetichus went on atour of Phoenicia and Palestine in the next y ear , 5 92 B . C . The tourw a s peaceful; at least there is no indication that major numbers ofmilitary forces accompanied him, and it is not e v e n certain that thearmy had returned from Nubia at the time of his departure.Obviously, then, Psammetichus expected a cordial reception, andapparently h e r e ce i v e d it. This could only have l e d to strengtheninghis t i e s with his Asiatic neighbors. 1 1 A t r e a t y regarding reciprocalmilitary action could w e l l have played a part in strengtheningt h o s e t i es , especially s i n c e the A s i a t i c s had already carried out theirpart of such an agreement. Thus, Zedekiah had an ally in whom he

7 R . A . Parker, "The Length of the Reign of A m a s i s and the Beginning of theTwenty-Sixth Dynasty," Kush 8 (1960): 208-212; M . Greenberg, "Ezekie l 1 7 and theP o l i c y of Psammetichus II," JBL 76 (1957): 304-309.

8 K . S . F r e e d y and D . B. R e d f o r d , "The D a t e s in Eze k ie l in Relation to Biblical,Babylonian and Egyptian S o u r c e s , " JAOS 9 0 (1970): 476.

9 M . Greenberg, p. 307.'"Ibid.; F r e e d y and Redford, p. 476."Freedy and Redford, p. 479.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

38/92

36 WILLIAM H. SHEAt r u s t e d for support in case Nebuchadnezzar returned, and atthat t i m e P s a m m e t i c h u s m a y have looked l ike a f o r m id ab le allyafter his convincing v i c t o r y o v e r the Kushi t es . It w a s probably at thist i m e that Z e d e k i ah d e c i d e d his course of action for the f u tu r e .T h e s e , then , are the e v e n t s which o c c u r r ed in E g y p t and Syro-P a l e s t i n e following the r e v ol t in B a byl o n mentioned in thechron ic le :

Dec. 595 - Jan. 594E a r l y 594L a t e 594E a r l y 593Spring 593

S u m m e r 593Fall 593592

R e v o l t in Babylon s u p p r e s s e dNebuchadnezzar collects w e s t e r n t r ib u teNebuchadnezzar a n d his a r m ymarch w e s tZedek iah t rave l s to Bab y lonand back (Jer 51:59) C o n f e r e n c e on r evo l t in Jerusalem (Jer 27)Troops se n t t o a s s i s t P s a mm e t ic h us I I?

Hananiah pr oph e s i e s return ofex i les in t w o years (Jer 28 ) P s a m m e t i c h u s ' a r m y vic tor i ous in Nubia P s a mmet i c hu s t o u r s Phoenicia a n d P a l e s t i n eThe r evo l t in B a b y l o n n e e d not be c o n s i d e r e d the d i r e c t cause

of all of these e v e n t s , but i t s e e m s l ikely that i t d i d have i t s effect inthe wes t . M o st important for our c o n s i d e r a t i o n h e r e is Zedek i a h ' strip to Babylon, w h i c h trip appears to h av e b e e n part of a programto p r e v e n t the r evo l t of N ebu c ha dnez z a r ' s wes t e r n vassals in thew a k e of the r evo l t against him at home, as mentioned earl ier . Noto n l y did that program fail, but it appe ar s to have a r o u s e d ar e ac t ion i n the opposite d i r e c t ion , as e v i d e n c e d by the subjec t of thec o n f e r e n c e in Jerusalem, which probably w a s h e ld s h or t l y afterZedek i a h ' s return f rom the east .T h e s e l a t e r m o v e s t o wa r d r evo l t n e e d not c o n c e r n us furtherhere , but Zedek i a h ' s trip to Babylon can be seen as part of a loyal typrogram for f o r e ign ki ng s that w e see promulgated for Bab y lon ian

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

39/92


officials in t h e third chapter of Daniel. There is an interestingBabylonian inscription which brings t h e s e two a s p e c t s of Nebuchadnezzar's loyalty-oath program e v e n c l o s e r together.

3. Inscriptional Evidence of the Loyalty OathThis intriguing e v i d e n c e c o m e s t o us in t h e form of anundated t e x t f r o m t h e time of Nebuchadnezzar, written in f i v e

columns on the f i v e s i d e s of a clay prism. The prism w a s found atBabylon and now r e s i d e s in t h e Istanbul museum. 1 2 The first threecolumns of this text ar e d e v o te d to Nebuchadnezzar's relations witht h e gods , and the last t w o columns contain a list of more than f i f t yofficials o f various ranks whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed. In t h efirst column Nebuchadnezzar d e s c r i b e s how much he had done fort h e g o d s by rebuilding their t e m p l e s and supplying diem withofferings. Many of the main figures in t h e Babylonian pantheonare mentioned in this column. In t h e s e c o n d column he t e l l s howMarduk g a v e the lands, both Babylonia and t h e l a n d s beyond, intohis hands and how the tribute from t h o s e lands had poured intohis coffers . The third column contains Nebuchadnezzar's prayer toMarduk that he might continue and extend his rule o v e r the lands.The l i s t of off icials begins at t h e bottom of th e third column, and ithas b e e n adapted h e r e from E . Unger's transliteration and Germantranslation and A . L . Oppenheim's English translation: 1 3

I ordered the (following) court officials in e x e r c i s e s of (their)duties to take up position in m y (off icial) s u i t e :I. COURT OFFICIALS (masennim)

1 . Nabu-zeri-iddinam, chancellor of the kingdom2. Nabu-zeri-ibni, general of the army3. ......nah, in charge of the palace4. Sin-sarri-...., in charge of the temple5. Atkal-ana-Mar-Esagila,....................(break at the top of column four)6. Ina-qibit-Bel-aksa,....7. Bel-eres , ...

1 2 E . Unger, Babylon, die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier(Ber l in , 1931), p. 2 8 2 .1 3 Ib id . , pp. 282-294; ANET, pp. 307-308.

8/14/2019 AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)

40/92


8 . Ardia, in charge of th e palace harem9. Bel-uballit, s e c r e t a r y of the palace harem10. Zilla, chief o f palace protocol11. Nabu-ahi-usur, chie f o f a detachment of light troops12. Musallim-Marduk, Nabu-usibisi, Eribsu and Nabu-

bel-usur, o v e r s e e r s of th e s lav e girls1

Documents

AUSS19820401-V20-01__B (2)