Biblical studies refers to the academic study of the literature of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament. For those of you who did not know because of my long inopportune hiatus from writing this blog, I am now at Claremont School of Theology pursuing a PhD in Hebrew Bible (so, a biblical studies degree). I have a daughter who is six months old. Many things have changed. Many things have remained the same.
One of those things that has definitely remained the same is regularly finding myself in situations in which preachers overstay their welcome by speaking of things they know not of. Unfortunately they do not usually know what they don’t know. In my younger years I tended to mostly experience this on issues of science. In college and seminary I began to notice it sometimes regarding history. In these areas it is easy to extend grace; after all, who has time to specialize in everything? The preacher must specialize in the Bible.
But of course, I specialize in the Bible too. And there’s the rub; hearing preachers err regarding the Bible or languages behind it is a frequent occurrence. Biblical studies ruins everything when listening to preachers speak of what they know not of. Here are some examples.
My first example is the word ποίημα (poiēma) in “we are his workmanship” from Ephesians 2:10. This word is a Greek noun related to the Greek verb ποιέω (to do, to make), referring to the product of the action. Unfortunately, I have heard Ephesians 2:10 explained as “we are God’s poem” based purely on the pronunciation of the Greek and not the sense, or that we are his “masterpiece,” choosing a more superlative and emotive word instead of the correct workmanship. We are God’s creation. This is really all the verse was trying to say. Stretching the text to refer to poems or masterpieces causes problems for how the Septuagint (ancient Greek version of the Old Testament) uses ποίημα. Let me substitute poem and masterpiece into some translations from the Septuagint to show you the problem:
According to all the poems* which they did to me from the time I led them out of Egypt until this day, they have also abandoned me and served other gods, so also they are doing to you.
1 Samuel 8:8
I have seen all the poems* which are done under the sun and behold, the whole is a vanity and pursuit of the wind.
Ecclesiastes 1:14
Everything which your hand finds to do, according to your strength do it, for there is no masterpiece* nor reasoning nor knowledge nor wisdom in Hades where you are going.
Ecclesiastes 9:10
*Poem would be better replaced by deed, masterpiece by work.
Another example is the Hebrew word חסד (Chesed). This is a very common word in the Psalms. It is frequently used to describe God’s faithfulness, mercy, and love. The ESV usually translates it as steadfast love. For this reason, some preachers like to wax poetic about how the meaning of the word is God’s steadfast, faithful, merciful, never-changing love. Here’s just one small problem with this:
And Abraham said, “…So it was as God made me wander from the house of my father that I said to her, ‘This is your חסד that you will do for me: unto every place where we go, say of me, “He is my brother.” ‘ “
Genesis 20:11, 13
In other words, the חסד that Sarah would do for Abraham was concealing their marriage so that the people of the land would not kill Abraham to take her from him. Of course, this subjected Sarah to extremely compromising positions on multiple occasions recorded in Genesis; how was this even really a faithful or loyal act?
The answer to this dilemma is quite simple; the languages of the Bible were not divinely created exclusively for the act of revelation, but rather were human languages with secular purposes that were used in a great act of condescension to give us the Word of God. We should not expect words, simply because they are Hebrew or Greek, to have deep theological meaning in themselves, but rather should see normal human words elevated to theological purposes. חסד does not in itself refer to God’s steadfast love, but rather came from a general meaning of loyalty in its ancient near eastern context to be later used by Hebrew writers of Scripture to refer to theological truths.
My painful experiences running aground on the reef of evangelical preaching is not limited to linguistic incompetence. Sometimes ancient interpretation seems to struggle for historical ignorance. Isaiah 14:3–21 is frequently cited as a passage that describes the fall of Satan from heaven. Does a good reading of the text sustain this conclusion? This may be the most controversial statement of this post: no, it does not.
On its face, Isaiah 14 does not claim to be about Satan falling from heaven. Rather, the command of verse 4 is to “take up this taunt over the King of Babylon.” So at least by statement, the poetic taunt from verses 4 to 21 (a literary unit as presented in the text) is about the human King of Babylon. At least, this is as it appears on its face.
Those who interpret Isaiah 14 as referring to Satan’s fall point to the escalating language of the taunt as eventually become so hyperbolic it could not refer to a mere man but rather to the fallen angel Satan himself. This is not really theologically necessary, however; as Psalm 8 says, God set man only a little lower than the angels. Genesis 11 recounts how humans at the tower of Babel in their pride intended to ascend to heaven. Indeed, assuming there is some point that Isaiah 14 passes beyond which it could only be talking about Satan and not the king of Babylon creates a division within the taunt that does not exist. The taunt is presented one literary unit; it should not be read as two or more in one. It’s not playing games with the reader. It means what it says.
To trace through the text and see how the whole taunt refers to a single individual, note that verses 4–6 emphasize first that a specific oppressor of nations has been struck down by God. The result of this on earth is rejoicing (vv. 7–8), that in hell is excitement among the dead kings of the earth (vv. 9–11). This meeting in Sheol only makes sense if the referent is a human king like those of the shades who greet him.
The seemingly elevated language is in verses 12–14 is usually the basis for positing a reference to Lucifer (in fact the Latin Vulgate translates Oh Shining One as Lucifer). But the “you” in verse 12 must be the “you” in verses 13, 14, 15, and then 16. So he is the “man who made the earth tremble, who shook the kingdoms.” This could not refer to Satan’s prehistoric fall from heaven. This must refer to a human king. How is this possible? How could a human king me the shining one, son of the dawn, who said in his heart that he would ascend to the heavens and be like God and like the Most High?
It’s not that complicated. The historical context that explains this also reveals the theological significance of the text.
The historical context of Isaiah 14 is Assyrian. This would seem strange for a taunt against the King of Babylon, but there’s a reason for that too. First, consider that the position of kings in much of the ancient near east was at minimum god-like. In Mesopotamian and Assyrian tradition, titles like Shining One, Son of the Dawn, etc. were all titles actually ascribed to Assyrian kings in their religion. Second, the description of the end of this human king in verses 18 and 19 matches the actual historical end of King Sargon II of Assyria. These verses describe the king’s end as unlike that of other kings who died and are buried; instead this king is cast out and left unburied as a rotten corpse. Historically Sargon II was killed in battle and left unburied on the battlefield, ultimately cast by his enemies into an unmarked grave.
How can this be reconciled with the ascription of the taunt to the King of Babylon? Quite simply, the taunt can be understood as originally composed regarding the death of Sargon II of Assyria. The command to one day take it up over the King of Babylon prophetically links the future fall of an evil king of Babylon to the historical fall of the king of Assyria. Theologically, all arrogant enemies of Israel, or more generally, all arrogant enemies of God’s people, ultimately receive for their pride the same shameful end. This could not then be applied to Satan’s fall from heaven; it could, however, be applied to the last antichrist and the final defeat of Satan at the end of days.
Grace, of course, must be extended to those who simply don’t know the Bible that well and are put in positions where they must teach. But at the same time, biblical studies has ruined my ability to simply sit back and relax and enjoy the ride of the preaching. Preachers are often just as unintentionally culpable of spreading misconceptions about the Bible as anyone else. They as teachers incur a stricter judgment; for now that stricter judgment comes from biblical studies students providentially placed in their audiences.
Citizens & Sons 
2 thoughts on “Biblical Studies Ruins Everything”