Bible Difficulties (70 page)

"Ozias begat Joatham." These are the Greek forms of Uzziah and Jotham. Some are confused by this mention of Uzziah, because Jotham's father is called Azariah in 2 Kings 15:1-7 and in 1 Chronicles 3:12. On the other hand, 2 Kings 15:32, 34 calls him Uzziah rather than Azariah and refers to him as the father of Jotham. The same is true of 2

Chronicles 26:1-23; 27:2; Isaiah 1:1; 6:1; 7:1. The names are different, but they refer to the same king.
àzaryah
("Azariah") means "Yahweh has helped," whereas
uzzi-yahu
("Uzziah") means "Yahweh is my strength." The reason for the two names is not given in the biblical record, but the fact that he bore them both (perhaps Azariah was later replaced by Uzziah) is beyond dispute.

There are various reasons for the acquisition of second names in the case of Israel's leaders. Gideon acquired the name Jerubbaal because of his destruction of the altar of Baal at Ophrah (Judg. 6:32; 7:1; 8:29, etc.). Rehoboam's son Abijam was also called Abijah (cf. 1 Kings 14:31; 15:1, 7-8 for Abijam and 1 Chron. 3:10; 2 Chron. 12:16 for Abijah). Jehoahaz son of Josiah also bore the name of Shallum (2 Kings 23:21 and 1

319

Chron. 3:15; Jer. 22:11). Jehoiakim, Josiah's oldest son, was originally named Eliakim; but Pharaoh Necho changed his name to Jehoiakim (i.e., "Yahweh will establish" rather than "God will establish"), according to 2 Kings 23:34. Likewise Jehoiachin son of Jehioakim was also known as Jeconiah, and Zedekiah's original name was Mattaniah.

Astrology is condemned in the Bible as a form of idolatry. Yet in Matthew 2:2 the
birth of Christ was told to the Magi by the appearance of His star in the heavens.

How can this be?

First of all, we need to define astrology as a superstitious belief in the movement or the position of the planets and stars as forewarnings of the will of the gods (or the forces of fate), which the devotees of astrology may somehow cope with by taking some sort of evasive or preventive action. Or else, as with the horoscope and study of the signs of the zodiac so much in vogue today, astrology may indicate special potentialities in those born under a certain constellation, or signify good or bad luck for activities that might be engaged in during that particular day. In ancient pre-Christian times, this concern for astrology was accompanied by actual worship of the heavenly bodies in a ritualistic way.

All who carried on such practices in ancient Israel were subject to execution by stoning (Deut. 17:2-7).

In the case of the natal star of Christ, however, none of the above elements was involved. The star the Magi saw in the East constituted an announcement that the Christ child had been born. We know this because of the scope of Herod's command to his corps of butchers sent to Bethlehem: "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi" (Matt. 2:16, NIV). Therefore the star must have appeared when Jesus was born, and it must required the Magi more than a year to get to Jerusalem and have their interview with Herod. The star was not a forewarning but the announcement of an already accomplished fact.

Second, no worship of false gods or deterministic powers of fate was involved in this pilgrimage of the Magi. They simply received God's announcement through the star as requiring them to seek the newborn King, because they understood that He was destined to be Ruler over the entire world--including their own country (which might have been Persia, since the Magi were most active there in ancient times). They therefore decided to make up a caravan for the group (whether there were three of them or more, we cannot be sure, except perhaps for the three types of gifts mentioned: gold, frankincense, and myrrh) and conduct a pilgrimage to the kingdom of the Jews. They wished to do homage to the God-sent Baby destined to become King of the Jews and of the whole earth as well.

Third, it should be understood that the Scripture speaks in several other passage of divine announcements in the heavens set forth by the sun, moon, and stars. For example, Jesus speaks of "the sign of the Son of Man" that will "appear in the sky,...with powers and great glory" (Matt. 24:30, NIV). It is fair to assume that this sign will include the sun, moon, or stars--though it could be some sort of blazing apparition. But certainly at 320

Pentecost the apostle Peter, quoting from Joel 2:28-32, was referring to these signs of the Second Coming when he said, "I will show wonders in the heaven above.... The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord" (Acts 2:19-20, NIV). These celestial manifestations have nothing to do with astrology as pagan superstition.

One last word about the star of Bethlehem. Much speculation and astronomical calculation have been devoted to the question of how such a bright and outstanding star could have been visible to the Magi. Some have suggested that there was an unusual lining up of planets or stars so that their combined light could have produced such a noteworthy brilliance. While such a cause might be assigned to the appearance of the original star, it is highly unlikely that any normal star was capable of directing its glow so specifically over Bethlehem that the wise men could identify the place where the Christ child was then residing. And yet according to Matthew 2:9, "The star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was." This was plainly a supernatural star sent by God for their special guidance.

Is not Matthew 2:6 a distortion of Micah 5:2 that significantly alters its meaning?

There are several minor variants in wording as between the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2

and the quotation of it in Matthew 2:6. There is also one major deviation of an unusual sort: a negative has apparently been substituted for a positive. As seems often to be the case, Matthew did not quote from the Septuagint version (LXX) but from some other Greek translation, possibly Proto-Theodotion. Actually the LXX is very close to the Masoretic text (MT) in this verse, and its only deviations are minimal concessions to Greek idiom. But Matthew used a more paraphrastic version, or perhaps injected a bit of interpretation as he dealt directly with the Hebrew original, endeavoring to bring out implications rather than giving a merely literal rendering.

In the first clause, addressed to Bethlehem, the house of Ephrathah, Matthew substitutes for "Ephrathah" the phrase "land of Judah." The LXX uses "house of Judah," as if repeating after
lehem
the
bet
that appears before it. Matthew may have derived from the etymology of Ephrathah a poetic name for Judah as "Fruitful One" (from the root
p-r-y
,

"fruit" or "be fruitful") the rendering above given.

The MT and the LXX agree in rendering the second clause "Thou art small to be among the thousands of Judah." Surprisingly enough, Matthew injects a strong negative in this main clause. Where the other two say positively, "Thou are small [
sair
; LXX says 'very small' (
oligostos
)] to be among the thousand of Judah [
be ale pe ye huddah
; LXX has
en
chiliasin Iouda
], "Matthew resorts to a paraphrase in order to bring out the implication behind the positive statement used by Micah himself. In other words, if Micah is saying to Bethlehem that it is small in size to be reckoned among the thousand family towns of Judah, yet the messianic ruler is destined to come from there, this adds up to the insight that Bethlehem is really a very important town indeed, one of commanding leadership.

Consequently Matthew feels justified in commencing the clause with a strong negative; that is, if the promised Messiah is destined to come out of Bethlehem, then it is by no 321

means the least in Judah, despite the modest size of its normal population. So Matthew ends up with "thou art by no means [
oudamos
] least among the rulers of Judah."

The second variation in the second clause has to do with the treatment of the word
alapim
, "thousands"--which even the LXX renders as
chiliasin
(dative plural of
chilias
,

"a thousand"). Matthew 2:6 refers to it as
hegemosin
("ruler"). How can this change be justified? Well, in this context it is clear that it is a town that is being addressed, rather than a literal army unit. Possibly towns were so referred to (cf. 1 Sam. 23:23) because they contained a thousand families, or else because they were capable of mustering least a thousand men-at-arms for the national militia. The standard term for a subdivision of a tribe was either
mispahah
("family", "clan," "sub-tribe") or else
elep
(1 Sam. 10:19,21).

From that specific submeaning it was but a step to refer to its military commander or civil ruler by the same term, just as the Latin
centurio
("centurion") was derived from
centuria
("a company of one hundred soldiers").

There is also a possibility, however, that Matthew (or the non-Septuagintal Greek version from which he was quoting) read
'allupim
(actually in the construct plural,

'allupe
) instead of MT's
'alepe
("thousands of"). This would involve no change of spelling in the consonants themselves, and vowel points were not added to the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible until about A.D. 700.
Allu-pim
is the plural of
'allup
("chieftain," "colonel in command of a thousand troops"). This is adequately rendered by
hegemon
("ruler") and would therefore justify Matthew's interpretation of this term. For all we know, this was the word Micah actually intended to write back in the late eighth century B.C., when the
waw
, which is characteristic of post-Exilic orthography, had not yet been introduced into the spelling of this word. In view of the clear suggestion of a messianic deliverer, destined by God to rule the world, the context tends to support this interpretation of
'-l-p-y
almost as strongly as the vocalization put on it by the Masoretes.

The only problem is to relate the concept of "ruler" with the town Bethlehem as a municipality. Yet even this may be understood as implying that a great messianic ruler (
mosel
) might logically be expected to come from a leading city in the territory of Judah, such as Hebron, Lachish, or Bethshemesh, rather than from a small community like Bethlehem in Micah's day.

It is quite significant that the final portion of Matthew 2:6 is really not taken from Micah 5:2 at all, even though it somewhat resembles it. Micah 5:2 b says, "From you One will go forth for Me to be a ruler in Israel" (NASB). Matthew 2:6 b concurs in part: "For out of you shall come forth a Ruler," but then it concluded with the words "who will shepherd My people Israel" (NASB). Notice that "will shepherd My people" is not found at all in Micah. Rather, it is inserted from 2 Samuel 5:2, which contains a promise from the Lord to King David, quoted to him by the leader of the Ten Tribes at Hebron: "And the LORD said to you, `You will shepherd My people Israel, and you will be ruler over Israel.'" (NASB). Therefore the words "will shepherd My people" are taken from 2

Samuel 5 rather than from Micah 5 (both contain "Israel" as the concluding word); and we find ourselves dealing with a conflate quotation, combining portions of Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2.

322

From this commingling of passages, we are to gather that Matthew did not intend to furnish a literal rendering of a single Old Testament verse, but meant rather to bring together two passages bearing on the fulfillment of divine prophecy in regard to the place of Messiah's birth, and apparently in regard to His royal lineage as well. The phrase from 2 Samuel 5 suggests by implications that the Ruler who is to be born in Bethlehem will fulfill perfectly the model of the theocratic King first exemplified by His ancestor David.

(For other examples of conflate quotations in the New Testament, cf. Matt. 27:9-10, which combines elements from Zech. 11:12-13 with an important element taken from Jer.

19:2,11, and 32:6-9. Another case is Mark 1:2-3, which combines Isa. 40:3 with Mal 3:1.) In light of the author's intention, therefore it is clear that Matthew did not contradict or pervert the meaning of Micah 5:2 (or of 2 Sam. 5:2) in the way he interpreted their implication according to the divine purpose that underlay them both. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that Herod's Bible experts quoted from more than one Old Testament passage. In a sense, therefore, they were the ones responsible for the wording, rather than Matthew himself.

Why do Matthew and Luke differ in the order of Christ's temptations?

Matthew 4:5-10 puts the proposal to jump from the pinnacle of the temple as the second of Christ's three temptations and the offer of the world empire as the third. Luke 4:5-12

makes the offer of the empire temptation number two and the jump from the pinnacle number three. Here we have a clear-cut discrepancy. How are we to account for it without sacrificing the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy?

This is understandably one of the often-debated questions raised in any discussion of the Synoptic accounts of Christ's life. But is not really unique, for similar problems arise in connection with the cursing of the fig tree in Matthew 21:18-19 and Mark 11:12-21.

Likewise, compare the "staff" passage in Mark 6:8 ("only a staff") with Matthew 10:10

and Luke 9:30 ("no staff"). In each case the technical differences arise from the special aim of the various Synoptists as they draw their portrait of Jesus.

In the case of the conflicting order of the second and third temptations as recorded by Matthew and Luke, we must take note of the adverbs and conjunctions employed by each in relating the episode. In the case of Matthew, there is a more definite emphasis on the sequence of the two temptations than in Luke. Matthew 4:5 says, "Then [
tote
] the Devil takes Him along to the holy city, and he sets Him on the pinnacle of the temple." After Jesus has refused to cast Himself down from it, as Satan proposed, we read, "Again