Cutting the Covenant:Q3-2005- pg.3

Issue no. 3: 2005 3^rd Quarter; article overview:

Page 1:First Article;Christian Zionism:The Lamb that speaks like a serpent
Page 2:Second Article;Qur’anic sources:The infancy Gospel of Thomas as Qur’anic source
Page 3:Third Article;Genesis 15 and Matthew 24:Cutting the covenant in the New Testament
Page 4:Fourth Article;The Day of Atonement-part two
Page 5:Fifth Article;The Spirit-part two
Page 6:Sixth Article;Review:“The Fire That Consumes”by Edward William Fudge
For the PDF version of this article click here

The land covenant of Genesis 15 is crucial for correctly interpreting the Olivet prophecy and understanding covenant theology in the wider context of the NT. [1] W.J. Dumbrell calls the covenant “remarkable”, “without parallel in the Old Testament” and even “this bizarre rite.” [2] Most commentators state that Genesis 15 has no connection (apart from repeating and elaborating the covenant in Chpt.12) with the preceding material. However, this is a misconception, for Genesis 15 is not an independent literary unit, for the covenant is given in response to Abram’s refusal to accept the reward offered by the king of Sodom (14:22,23) Yahweh says, “I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward”(15:1). Moreover, the rescue of Lot prefigures the rescue of Israel from Egyptian slavery (Abram’s sojourn in Egypt in Chpt.13 fulfils the same function), which is specifically mentioned in 15:13, 14:

“And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.”

Abram had refused the “substance” offered by the king of Sodom but his descendants would be greatly enriched by their ordeal, the great substance they would acquire was only their due for years of enforced slavery.

The narrative is structured as a parallelism with an inclusio; a prophetic dream report sandwiched between two sections of an epiphany report:

In essence the covenant in Genesis 15 answers Abram’s question, “How do I know that what you have promised will come to pass?” God confirms his promise by establishing a unilateral unconditional covenant. Normally both parties would walk between the sacrificial pieces implying that the “covenant breaker” would suffer a similar fate to the sacrificial victims – a covenant is “cut” [3] but Hasel and Hess argue that the covenant deals only with ratification not with imprecation. [4]

It is highly significant that this covenant was given to Abram on Passover night. The Exodus account uses the expression “the selfsame day” [5] making it clear that Abram’s descendants left Egypt exactly 430 years (to the very night) after the giving of the covenant (Ex.12: 40, 41; Gal 3: 17) [6] Another detail connected with this revelation to Abram seems to be especially significant. The time of day is precisely stated to be between when “the sun was going down” (v.12) and “when the sun went down” (v.17). This would be equivalent to the time specified in later years for the offering of the Passover lambs: “between the two evenings” (Exodus 12:6, margin), a phrase that apparently means ‘between mid-afternoon and sunset.’ Moreover, Passover protection was offered to those who painted the lintels of their house with lamb’s blood in the form of a Hebrew H – the letter added to Abram’s name to give the thematic R-A-H combination found in the Abraham narratives (Moriah, Terah, Sarah, Abraham) denoting “revealing” or “seeing”

In the Exodus account the people pass through the sea; contrasting with God passing between the pieces, they are “resurrected” through the Abrahamic covenant [7] and reconstituted as a “Holy nation” by the Siniatic covenant. When they enter the land, they pass through water again, and then re-establish the rite of circumcision covenanted to Abraham; clearly the Siniatic covenant should be understood as a subset to the Abrahamic covenants and if not inferior to the older covenants, certainly limited in what it could achieve. By obeying the law they made a choice for life, but that life was only breathed into them in the first place by the promises and covenants made to Abraham. They were saved because of the Abrahamic covenant and entered the land under the Abrahamic covenant of faith- the law could only bring death (and ultimately a self imposed slavery) witness the generation who, because of faithlessness and disobedience, died in the wilderness.

Particularly graphic in the covenant account is mention of the birds of prey that attempt to feast on the carcasses. Genesis uses the rare word `ayit to denote a carrion eating “ravenous bird” rather than the more frequent neser [8] This was probably not a description of eagles but of griffon-vultures. Even the Hebrew neser is ambiguous; Brown and Driver and Briggs agree that by lexical definition, neser covers quite a descriptive span; ". . . griffon-vulture, eagle . . neser may be a more comprehensive word, including both vulture and eagle." [9] The term can include all large birds of prey, and the many references, most of them figurative, give few clues as to the species. [10] It seems most likely however, that these birds were griffon-vultures, which has a wingspan that can measure eight feet and is the most magnificent bird of prey in Israel. [11]

The griffon-vulture, portrayed as the goddess Nekhbet, was also the symbol of upper- Egypt. [12] Her northern counterpart was the cobra goddess. Over time Nekhbet was transformed from the personal protector of the Pharaoh and from the giver of the white crown to the pharaoh, she became the symbol of sovereignty in ancient Egypt. Significantly, Nekhbet, who was the “wet nurse” of Pharaoh became the guardian of mothers and infants [13] and she took on the role of protector, she moved from the Pharaoh's own goddess to one who looked after mothers and children through the whole land.

“And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.” (Ex.1: 16) [14]

From the Exodus narrative we know that the Egyptians put the Hebrew infants to death; it is therefore both ironic and fitting that Abram saw “Nekhbet” the vulture symbol of Egypt and protector of infants circling the sacrificial pieces. It was the Abrahamic covenant that protected Israel from national death during the “horror of great darkness” and it was God himself who kept the Egyptian vulture at bay while Abraham slept. [15]

“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of EL SHADDAY (God Almighty), but by my name YAHWEH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.” (Ex.6: 3-5) [16]

“Where the carcass is there will the vultures be gathered together” (Mtt.24: 28; Lk.17: 37).

Before we examine the “carcass saying” it is beneficial to compare the context in both Luke and Matthew. Green believes that the passage in Luke 17 (beginning with verse 22) is structured into an almost poetic form, “inverted, conceptual parallelism” or an A-B-C-B-A pattern. [17]

The other occurrence of the “carcass saying” is in the much more elaborate Olivet prophecy of Matthew 24. Whereas Luke reports the eschatological prophecies as happening on two different occasions (Luke 17 and 21) Matthew, has seemingly gathered all the sayings together. It is not the concern of this article to determine whether Luke is using Matthew (or Mark) or which sayings are originally attributable to the Q source; it is however useful to compare both accounts and to remember that Jesus probably answered the same question at different times throughout his ministry – the gospel accounts are not an exact chronological report but rather theological constructs.

This comparison allows us to see that even though Luke treats it separately (in chpt.17); Matthew closely associates the carcass saying with the destruction of Jerusalem. The saying is certainly enigmatic and has attracted many different interpretations;

“The disciples’ question is concerned with locality, and does not follow from the preceding sayings. It takes up the point in v.23 In Mt. The point is that there is no need to ask ‘Where?’ or to seek for the coming of the Son of man. His coming will be obvious as lightning. His presence will be clearly indicated, just as the presence of carrion is clearly indicated by the gathering of vultures overhead. Alternatively, the thought is that men will no more be able to miss seeing the Son of man than vultures can miss seeing carrion (Klostermann, Matthäus, 195,cited by Schulz, 284 n.153) Others take the force to be that the Son of man will appear when the world is ripe for judgment (Zahn, 607;Geldenhuys, 445), or that judgment will operate wherever it is needed (Creed, 221), or that men should avoid being like carrion, waiting to be devoured (Danker, 183). J.Weiss, 495, thinks that the disciples’ question means, “Where do those left behind stay?” with the answer being ‘at the scene of judgment’; but this is rather forced. Zimijwski, 513-517, holds that the point is the universality of the separation in vs.34f. This last view seems best for Lk.” [18]

Topel believes it to be a post factum sign which bears out what Jesus has been saying all along: that there are no prior signs of the arrival of the final reign of God: [19]

“They will no more need a special sign than do the vultures: they will recognize the Son of Man wherever he appears with the same surety with which the vulture finds the carrion” [20]

Lightfoot finds the notion that the saints are likened to vultures objectionable:

"For wheresoever the carcase is, &c. I wonder any can understand these words of pious men flying to Christ, when the discourse here is of quite a different thing: they are thus connected to the foregoing: Christ shall be revealed with a sudden vengeance; for when God shall cast off the city and people, grown ripe for destruction, like a carcase thrown out, the Roman soldiers, like eagles, shall straight fly to it with their eagles (ensigns) to tear and devour it. And to this also agrees the answer of Christ, Luke xvii. 37; when, after the same words that are spoken here in this chapter, it was inquired, 'Where, Lord?' he answered, 'Wheresoever the body is: &c.; silently hinting thus much, that Jerusalem, and that wicked nation which he described through the whole chapter, would be the carcase, to which the greedy and devouring eagles would fly to prey upon it" [21]

Lightfoot’s interpretation agrees with the view that is often expressed in a more extreme form by Preterists, namely, that it was all fulfilled in AD 70. Those who translate the Greek, “aetos”, to mean “eagle”, usually understand the proverb as a reference to the eagle ensign which precedes every legion in the Roman army. [22] Topel states; “The Greek word that is translated as ‘vulture’ in English is a broader term for ‘birds of prey’ because both the eagle and the vulture are indistinguishable from below when they are in flight.” [23] It is however highly unlikely that an eagle is meant in the context of carrion and although the term is ambiguous and the saying certainly had a first century fulfillment it self evidently did not result in the return of Christ, therefore the understanding of this difficult text must be sought in a different direction.

The carcase saying in Luke and Matthew is an allusion to the passage in Job 39:27-30:“….where the slain are, there it (nesher –eagle/vulture) is.” The context is the universal control and wisdom of God that is observable in the natural world – the eagle (vulture) mounts up at God’s command (v.27). This reminds one of the summons to the birds (in Rev.19: 17-18) to attend God’s great feast, to which they are invited as guests, which forms a grim contrast to the wedding feast of the Lamb.

“And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.”

The wedding feast is itself a Passover supper – and here we have the solution to the problem, for Passover fulfils a dual function; salvation and destruction. The carcass saying in the Olivet prophecy forms a parallelism with the Abrahamic covenant, which was ratified on the Passover night.

GENESIS 15	MATTHEW 24
The birds of prey came down upon the carcasses (v.11)	Where the carcass is there will the vultures be gathered together (Mtt.24: 28; Lk.17: 37).
The sun went down, a horror of great darkness (v.12)	The sun darkened (v.29)
A smoking furnace A flaming torch (v.17)	Then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven. (v.30)

The Passover night was both a night of deliverance and destruction- deliverance for the faithful:

“As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.” (Isa.31: 5)

“And he shall pass over to his strong hold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.” (Isa.31: 9)

The context (unrecognised by most commentators) is the Passover deliverance during the reign of Hezekiah –and the destruction of the Assyrian;

“Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him: but he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be discomfited.” (Isa.31: 8)

The Assyrian was not destroyed by a “human sword” but by the “flaming sword of the cherubim” (Gen.3: 24) the same cherubim that is described by Ezekiel as being; “like burning coals of fire, [and] like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning”(Ezek.1: 13). This was the same “burning lamp” and “smoking furnace” that passed between the pieces of the sacrificial victims.

Caird puts it as follows: “This event will be unmistakable and distinctive, even from a distance one can see the vultures circling the dead carcass even if the prey itself is out of view. But more important is the cross-reference, which picks up a vital thread in Revelation – the invitation is to the birds that fly in mid heaven. This curious phrase has been used before to characterise the eagle or vulture whose screech gave warning of the three woes (8: 13), and although the woes steadily intensified, the third woe was never actually depicted (11: 18). Instead the seventh trumpet called forth a jubilant paean on the establishment of God’s sovereignty and a promise that the time had come to reward God’s servants and to destroy the destroyers of the earth. It appears, then, that now at last we have reached the third woe. The birds that fly in mid-heaven, come to make good the threat of the eagle that flew in mid heaven. This reminder of the eagle and its three woes helps us to answer the next question as well. Who are these armies marshalled to do battle with the Rider? They are those who would “destroy the earth” a metaphor for the land of Israel (11:18). The kings of the earth are the ten kings that we encountered earlier, who destroyed the harlot. All classes of men are punished for they were all involved with the worship of the beast and his image (cp.v.18 with 13:16).” [24]

The Land promised to Abram concerned the territory of “ten nations” whose geographical limits were determined by two rivers “from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates” (Gen 15: 18-21). [25] The “ten kings” of Revelation form the eschatological counterpart to the Genesis narrative.

To summarise our analysis so far; the connection between the Abrahamic covenant and Passover has been highlighted and between the eschatological “carcass saying” and a time of destruction/deliverance, which are essentially different sides of the same coin. The “dead body” is therefore symbolic of a national death, but this “body” should be differentiated from the body (bodies?) of the eschatological witnesses in Revelation 11. The “witnesses” no doubt include a (the) faithful Jewish remnant. This probably explains Matthew’s choice of ptōma over against Luke’s sōma to describe the body. [26] The death and resurrection of the witnesses in Revelation 11 is symbolic of the bringing to life again of the nation and is similar to the Passover deliverance during Hezekiah’s reign:

“Thy dead men (Judah’s) shall live, together with my dead body (the witnesses) shall they arise.” (Isa.26: 19)

[Context: Hezekiah raised from his sickbed a sign of the nations impending deliverance]

We note that it is the prophecy of Ezekiel that causes the breath to enter the dry bones, similarly it is the prophecy of John – “thou must prophesy again over many people…” (Rev.10: 11) [This is the commission to Ezekiel – “prophesy over (RV) these bones” (Ezek.37: 4).] It is the prophetic Spirit breath that causes the dry bones to live – the witnessing of the two prophets in Revelation is a thematic continuation of John’s (and Ezekiel’s) testimony. The ascension of the witnesses to heaven is not literal like that of Jesus.

The ascension to heaven signifies the close state of fellowship with God and of access to his throne (cf. Rev.15: 1; 19:1). “Their enemies beheld them” implies a change of status and negates the idea of a literal ascension. A paraphrase of verses 11-12 would be as follows: Through the spirit-gifted testimony of the witnesses new life was breathed into the nation. The death and vindication of the witnesses catalysed the resurrection of a faithful remnant from amongst the nation of Israel; all the enemies (of the witnesses) could do, was look on helplessly while the preaching and vindication of the (dead) witnesses resulted in a new status (in heavenly places – Eph.2: 6) of the Jewish converts. “For if the casting away of them (Israel) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?” (Rom.11: 15)

The Abrahamic covenant is certainly unconditional, but not in the sense put forward by many evangelicals, Daniel Lee is correct in his observation that this has become synonymous with unmerited:

So the covenant promises to Abraham are clearly irrevocable But in common evangelical usage, unconditional is more than a synonym for irrevocable. We often use it to mean unmerited or undeserved – sometimes even applying it to God’s ultimate unmerited gift: salvation by faith, however, in this sense of the word, scripture flatly contravenes the notion that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional:

And the LORD appeared to him [Isaac] and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. And I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws. " (Gen 26:2-5) [27]

The “laws” that Abraham obeyed were obviously not Mosaic, for as the apostle Paul makes clear, that the promise was given long before hand (Gal.3:17-18) – the Genesis redactor is emphasizing that the response of obedient faith is superior to cultic ritual observance of the Law. The covenant is unconditional and irrevocable in that God will accomplish it despite national sinfulness, for he will provide the means whereby it can be fulfilled (Jesus Christ), nevertheless it demands repentance, faithfulness and obedience from the individual. One cannot continue in sin in order that “grace may abound.”

It is also become increasingly popular to question the literality of the covenant, by for example pointing out that Hebrews discusses at length the superiority of the New Covenant, and how, within it, we who believe have a better covenant, a better priesthood, and better promises. Abraham desired a better country, that is, a heavenly one…(Heb 11:8-16). The land-orientation of the Abrahamic covenant is transcended by the covenant of grace epitomized in the Melchizedek blessing.[28]

It is indeed true that Abraham looked for a heavenly country, yet God showed him the land that he would inherit and commanded him to walk the length and breadth of it (Gen.13:17). The author to the Hebrews stresses that the tabernacle (and therefore the temple) was made after the pattern (Heb.8:5) of the “heavenly sanctuary.” Revelation has that “heavenly sanctuary” in the form of the “new Jerusalem” (constituted out of the saints) descend out of the heavens (Rev.21:1-2) – henceforth God’s dwelling place would be on earth amidst his people. Abraham’s “heavenly country” is identical with the “heavenly city”, it is a metaphor for divine rule on earth and does not therefore negate a literal fulfillment; in fact it compliments and reinforces a literal reading. Furthermore, the better promises are not a reflection on the Abrahamic covenants for this would destroy the Hebrews argument; rather they are a comparison between the promises that came from obeying the Law with the covenant promises. Obedience to the Law was a choice for life, (Deut.30:19) not for eternal life (John 11:25).

The Abrahamic covenant was cut on the Passover night and God’s unconditional promise was ratified by the sacrifice of his beloved Son at Passover. The betrayal and darkness experienced by the Son of God in his hour of destitution will also be experienced by the nation when they are betrayed by “ten kings” with whom they shared power for “one hour” (Rev.17:12). However, God will preserve a faithful remnant as he did in the past:

“Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight” (Hos.6:1-2).

Only God can keep the vultures at bay during the “horror of great darkness” –this event will be inimitable, unambiguous and clearly evident, even from a great distance. “Where the carcass is there will the vultures be gathered together” (Mtt.24: 28; Lk.17: 37). Yahweh is able to make the dead body live again but the fate of the wicked is to be “cut asunder” like the sacrificial victims (Mtt.24:51).

[1] “It is recognized by all serious students of the Bible that the covenant with Abraham is one of the important and determinative revelations of Scripture. It furnishes the key to the entire Old Testament and reaches for its fulfillment into the New. In the controversy between premillenarians and amillenarians, the interpretation of this more or less settles the entire argument. The analysis of its provisions and the character of their fulfillment set the mold for the entire body of Scriptural truth.” John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Dunham, 1959) 139.

[2] Dumbrell is correct in noting the unusual nature of the covenant, particularly the anthropomorphic aspect of Yahweh passing between the pieces; the fact that He is the only party that does so (suggesting unconditionality), and also the implied imprecatory intention of the covenant. W.J. dumbrell, Covenant and Creation (paternoster press 1984),p 49-55.

[3] The Hebrew

(biryth) “cut” is the most common expression used for establishing a covenant (“to cut a covenant”). Other terms expressing the establishing of a covenant are “to give a covenant” (Gen 9:12; 17:2) and “to erect a” (Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11; 17:7, 10, 19). See M. Weinfeld, Theological Dictionary of Old Testament [TDOT], ed. by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgen, trans. by John T. Willis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 2:259-60.

[4] “It is not clear that intends to imply a substitutionary element. Nowhere is there the implication that God accepts the possibility of being torn in two if the promise to Abraham is not kept. . . . Nor is it clear that there is a transformation of the rite which somehow results in the curse being applied to anyone who interferes with the divine promise. . . . Instead, the common element found in each case is that the life of each of the animals has been taken away. The implication of this is that God’s own divine life forms the surety for the promise.” Hess, The Slaughter of the Animals in Genesis and Its Ancient Near East Context 62-63. See also Gerhard Hasel, Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15 (JSOT 19, 1981), p.70.

[5] The Hebrew ‘etsem [Strongs 6106] is the word for bone, which when followed by a genitive [i.e. zeh- it is, or, that is 2088] is used instead of the pronoun “itself” be.e.tsem ha.yom ha.ze [even the selfsame day]. The abstract meaning is probably derived from the sense of sameness [idiomatically bone of my bone]. Interestingly ‘etsem is used in the same chapter (12:46); “neither shall ye break a bone [‘etsem] thereof” referring to the bone of the Passover lamb [seh 7716 similar to zeh 2089 (lamb) and the demonstrative zeh 2088]. Literally the phrase “even the selfsame day” is a play on “lamb bone day.”

[6] In the LXX reading of Ex.12: 40, it includes the patriarchs sojourning in Canaan as well as their descendants residence in Egypt. In the MT the interval between the promise and the law was more like 645 years; in Seder’ Olam 3 the 430 years are reckoned from the covenant of Genesis 15 to the Exodus.

[7] Egypt was known for its elaborate cult of the dead and preparations for the afterlife. Israel’s emergence from the land of death and slavery was similar to Abram awakening from the “horror of great darkness”.

[9] Brown, Francis; S. R. Driver; and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon at the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford at the Clarendon Press. 1907. pp. 676-677.

[10] Cansdale. G. S. "Birds of the Bible." The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962. p. 154.

[13] Around the time of the middle kingdom (2040-1640 BC) therefore it was well established in the time of Abram. The early date for the Exodus is usually given as 1440 and the late dating 1290 BC – 430 years prior to these dates falls in the middle kingdom period.

[14] A mamissi (birth house) can be found at the ancient city of Nekheb dedicated to Nekhbet (the embodiment of Hathor). The temple was begun around 2700 BC, and enlarged in by later pharaohs of the 18th through 30th dynasties, (1539-1069 BC) including Tuthmosis III, Amenophis II, and the Ramessids – See: http://www.touregypt.net/elkab.htm

[15] It is noteworthy that while he was conscious Abram prevented the birds of prey from scavenging the sacrificial victims, but when he was in “the horror of great darkness” (typical of death) he was unable to act as protector and had to rely on God to keep the carrion eaters away. When the people of Judah betrayed the covenant the prophet Jeremiah warned that their carcasses would be meat for the birds of prey (and for the beasts of the earth) and that no one would “fray them away” (Jer.7: 33) Zedekiah the king, and the royal family would be destroyed and taken captive in the Babylonian invasion and, “their dead bodies shall be meat unto the fowls of heaven, and to the beasts of the earth.” They had undertaken a solemn covenant, and passed between the pieces of the sacrificial animals. They had promised to liberate their Hebrew slaves as instructed in the law of Jubilee (Exodus 21:2; Deut.15:12-15; Lev.25:39-41) and then they had reneged on their promise. (Jer.34: 8-22)

[16] Exodus 6:3 (the locus classicus proof text for the Document Hypothesis) is often used to demonstrate the ignorance of the priestly source P [the name “Yahweh” was not known by them] even though J, the Yahwistic source, wrote using the name as part of his theology. Even if we assume that the redactor was so obtuse that he could not correctly conflate his sources, and even if the less likely Niphal verb construct is accepted (we would expect a Hiphal see http://www.bible.org/netbible/), we cannot ignore the truism that context is everything in hermeneutics. Although the origins of the title (not name) EL SHADDAY are disputed and obscure the Genesis usage demands that it is always connected with blessing, fecundity and fertility (Gen.17: 1, 6; 28: 3; 35:11; 49:25). On the other hand YAHWEH is the covenant name. Whatever else it may mean it is most certainly connected with living, breathing and existing (Matt. 22:32; I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living). Abraham believed in God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. (Rom 4:17b-24)

Moses is being reprimanded for his complaint: “Ever since I went to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has brought trouble upon this people, and you have not rescued your people at all" (Ex.5: 23 NIV).God had revealed himself as EL SHADDAY to the patriarchs and had kept the implicit promise bound up with the title: (Ex.1: 7; But the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them). But by my name Yahweh was I not known to them? Of course they also knew God by his covenant name Yahweh; and therefore the promise was implicit that they would live. God had not just revealed himself as the bringer of fruitfulness and blessing but as the giver and sustainer of life itself. Moses, I kept my promise and multiplied you exceedingly; do you really think I made you plentiful in order for you to die in Egypt? You ought to know better for didn’t I also reveal myself to your fathers as Yahweh? (The name you say causes such trouble for you with Pharaoh) I AM the self-existing eternal one who has life in Himself –do you think I raised up a people in order to let them die? Am I a God of the dead? Surely I will remember my covenant with your fathers –I have sworn by my Holy name; I will not leave this people in Egypt (the land of graves) but will rescue them from the “horror of great darkness”.

[18] I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, A Commentary on the Greek Text (Paternoster Press,1978),p.669

[19] Topel, J. What Kind of a Sign are Vultures? Luke 17,37b (Biblica: V. 84, No. 3, 2003), p. 411

[22] Fitzmyer, J. The Gospel According to Luke (Vol. 28A. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday & Co., 1985), p. 1173 see also Josephus' JewishWars 5-02-1 - the ensigns, with the eagles. Often Deut.28:49 is cited to establish the connection: "Yahweh will bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand." This also refers to the true eagle and points out that its power of sustained flight, and the speed it could attain when hastening to its hunger-clamoring young, had been observed.

[25] The river of Egypt referred to here is usually thought to be the Wadi el-‘Arīsh not the Nile. The country between this wadi and the eastern branch of the Nile is mostly desert-it meant that the descendants of Abraham would possess the land as far as Egypt.

[26] The Greek ptōma means corpse or carcass, and is used only five times in the New Testament

(4) For where ever the carcass (ptōma) is, there will the eagles (vultures) be gathered together (Mtt.24: 28).

(5) And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his (John the Baptist’s) corpse (ptōma) and laid it in a tomb (Mk.6: 29).

Three times in Revelation 11 of the bodies (or body?) of the witnesses, once in Matthew 24 in the Olivet prophecy concerning the return of Christ and once for John the Baptist, who was the witness concerning Christ’s first advent. In contrast the Luke account uses sōma, which is more frequently used for a living body.

[27] See (recommended reading): Quodlibet Journal: Volume 6 Number 3, July – Sept. 2004. A Reassessment of the Meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant for Evangelical Theology Daniel Lee http://www.Quodlibet.net

Matthew 24	Luke 21 and Luke 17
v.3) Disciples: When? Signs of your coming and the end of the world?	v.7) Disciples: When?....Signs?
v.4) False reports	v.8) False reports
v.6) Rumours	v.9) Rumours
V.7-8) World (Tribulation birth-pangs)	v.10-11) World (Tribulation birth-pangs)
v.19-14) Believers (Persecution, false prophets, falling away, Gospel preached)	v.12-19) Believers (Persecution, witnessing, betrayal, divine protection)
v.15) Abomination of Desolation	v.20) Armies surrounding Jerusalem
v.16-22) Great Tribulation (Warning; flee [housetop saying] …those days shortened)	v.21-24) Great Tribulation (Warning; flight, woe, Jerusalem downtrodden)
v.23-26) Warning (False reports-prophets)	v.23) Warning (False reports)
v.27) Day of the son of Man (Like lightening)	v.24) Day of the Son of Man (Like lightening)
v.28) Carcass saying	v.37) Carcass saying
v.29) Sun darkened	v.25-26) Signs in heaven
v.30) Sign of the Son of Man –tribes mourn	v.27) Son of man coming in the clouds
v.31) Trumpet	v.28) Look up-redemption nigh
v.32-35) Parable of the fig tree	v.29-33) Parable of the fig tree
v.36) Only God knows the time
v.37-39) Days of Noah	v.26-37) Days of Noah (days of Lot)
v.40-41) One taken, one left	v.34-36) One taken, one left
v.45-51) Warning (Wise servant, evil servant, drunkenness)	v.34-35) Warning (Drunkenness)
v.42) Exhortation (Watch)	v.36) Exhortation (Watch)

Authorized Version	Transliteration	Hebw./Grk.	Translation
Fowls (Gen.15: 11)	Hebrew `ayit		Fowl (4x) bird (2x) ravenous bird (2x)
Fowls (Jer.7: 33)	Hebrew `owph		Fowl (59x)
Eagle, vulture, griffon-vulture	Hebrew nesher		Eagles (26x) Vultures 0
Eagles (Mtt24: 28; Lk.17: 37;Rev.4:7;12:14)	Greek aetos		eagle

2005 July-Sept: Issue no.3; PAGE 3