tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71787666530286989832024-03-12T15:45:50.561-07:00A Trivial DevotionIn this blog, I reflect on Bible Trivia questions. The questions come from <i>Bible Bafflers</i>. The game’s cards are divided into five categories and I review one card for each day of the traditional workweek. The topics are: People (Monday), Other Bafflers (Tuesday), New Testament (Wednesday), Old Testament (Thursday), Geography/History (Friday).Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.comBlogger310125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-20833016489289306562015-01-30T15:00:00.000-08:002015-02-04T06:47:19.906-08:00Samuel’s Little Robe (I Samuel 2:19)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yqYQiuxXRbc/VMpBd-OwoeI/AAAAAAAAI-0/JRELJbLP_Xw/s1600/Samuel'sRobe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yqYQiuxXRbc/VMpBd-OwoeI/AAAAAAAAI-0/JRELJbLP_Xw/s320/Samuel'sRobe.jpg" /></a></div><b>Whose mother sent him a new coat each year? Samuel’s (I Samuel 2:19)</b>
<p>First Samuel opens with a woman named Hannah troubled by her infertility (I Samuel 1:1-8). She journeys to Israel’s religious epicenter, Shiloh, and prays to the Lord for a child, promising, “I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and a razor shall never come on his head.” (I Samuel 1:11 NASB). After being unjustly rebuked by the priest, Eli (I Samuel1:12-18), her prayer is answered and she gives birth to a son, Samuel (I Samuel 1:19-28), for which she famously offers a prayer of thanksgiving (I Samuel 2:1-11).
<p>The narrative then shifts to detailing the impropriety of Eli’s sons (I Samuel 2:12-17) before returning its focus to the boy Samuel, who was being raised in Shiloh (I Samuel 2:18-21).
<p>Immediately after mentioning that Samuel is wearing a priestly ephod (I Samuel 2:18), the text notes that Hannah periodically returns to Shiloh to present her son with a robe (I Samuel 2:19).
<blockquote>And his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him from year to year when she would come up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. (I Samuel 2:19 NASB)</blockquote>
This child will grow up to become one of the most pivotal figures in Israel’s history. Gene M. Tucker (b. 1935) focuses:
<blockquote>Even children of destiny have parents. Here, of course, his mother Hannah stands out. Although she had “loaned him” to the Lord (I Samuel 1:28, 2:20 RSV) in fulfillment of her vow [I Samuel 1:11], she continued to be his mother. One cannot help but he touched by the account of the mother who sees her young son but rarely, each year bringing him “a little robe” [I Samuel 2:19], He is, after all, a growing boy, and last year’s robe will soon be too short. (<a href=http://www.craddocksermons.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fred B. Craddock</a> [b. 1928], <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/emeriti/hayes.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Hayes</a> [1934-2013], <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/holladay.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carl R. Holladay</a> [b. 1943] and Tucker, <i>Preaching Through the Christian Year: Year C: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Lectionary</I>, 45)</blockquote>
The image of the young man in his little robe has become iconic. <a href=http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/MeyerFB.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">F.B. Meyer</a> (1847-1929) informs:
<blockquote>Dean [Arthur Penrhyn] Stanley [1815-1881] tells us that, in his gentler moments, Martin Luther [1483-1546] used to dwell on these early chapters of the books of Samuel with the tenderness which formed the occasional counterpoise to the ruder passions and enterprises of his stormy life. Indeed, students of the Scriptures in every age have been arrested by the figure of this little child girded with his linen ephod, or in the little robe which his mother brought him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice [I Samuel 2:18-19]. (Meyer, <i>Samuel: The Prophet</I>, 3)</blockquote>
In consecutive verses, the narrative addresses the child’s wardrobe (I Samuel 2:18-19). <a href=https://www.facebook.com/bruce.c.birch STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce C. Birch</a> (b. 1941) tracks:
<blockquote>The failure of Eli’s sons in their priestly duties is followed by a notice concerning Samuel’s education as a priest [I Samuel 2:18-21]...The notice about Samuel’s clothing [I Samuel 2:18] bridges to a brief account of the small robe Hannah would make and bring to Samuel each year [I Samuel 2:19]. (Birch, <i>The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume II: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Introduction to Narrative Literature, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel</I>, 987)</blockquote>
Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) supposes:
<blockquote>He [Samuel] wears a <i>linen ephod</I>, probably a loincloth, in accordance with priestly custom (<i>e.g.</I> I Samuel 22:18); there is no talk of lower-age limits for priestly service in this story where grown men have failed (<i>cf</I>. Numbers 8:24-26; I Chronicles 23:24-32). A more substantial outer <i>robe</I> (I Samuel 2:19) was supplied for his growing frame when his mother made her accustomed visits to Shiloh. (Gordon, <i>I & II Samuel: A Commentary</I>, 82)</blockquote>
Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) evaluates:
<blockquote>Even as a young apprentice priest under Eli’s supervision, Samuel wore the linen ephod characteristic of that ministry [I Samuel 2:18]. Anthony Phillips [b. 1936] (“David’s Linen Ephod,” <a href=http://www.brill.com/vetus-testamentum STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><i>Vetus Testamentum</I></a> 19/4 [1969]: 487), primarily on the basis of II Samuel 6:14, attempted to prove that Samuel’s ephod “is not to be understood as a special priestly garment but a brief loincloth suitable for young children.” But Phillips fails to explain why David (II Samuel 6:14) would wear a child’s garment, and he resorts to the Septuagint’s omission of linen in I Samuel 22:18 to confirm his belief that the eighty-five priests slaughtered by Doeg are not described there as “wearing” ephods but as “carrying” an “oracular instrument” (another meaning for <i>’ēpōd</I>). N.L. Tidwell (“The Linen Ephod: I Samuel 2:18 and II Samuel 6:14,” <a href=http://www.brill.com/vetus-testamentum STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><i>Vetus Testamentum</I></a> 24/4 [1974]:505-07) rightly criticizes Phillips’ view in favor of the traditional interpretation: “Linen ephod” always refers to a priest’s garment, whether worn by a youth or by an adult. Indeed, the little “robe” that Samuel’s mother made for him annually as he was growing up (II Samuel 2:19) may well have been an example of the “robe of the ephod” mentioned in Exodus 28:31 (the Hebrew word for “robe” being the same in both passages). Although David is not described as wearing such a robe in II Samuel 6:14, he is so depicted in the parallel text of I Chronicles 15:27. (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 60)</blockquote>
<a href=http://trinitycollegechapel.com/about/memorials/brasses/kirkpatrick/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A. Graeme Auld</a> (b. 1941) supplements:
<blockquote>The ephod with which he is girded [I Samuel 2:18] is worn or borne almost always by priests; and we shall find David wearing it bringing the ark to Jerusalem (II Samuel 6:14)...We may wonder whether this youngster’s distinctive uniform anticipates a priestly role or a royal (or at least leadership) role. The topic of dress is immediately developed in the final scene, in which his mother appears (I Samuel 2:19-21). The little “robe” she makes for him is worn alike by princes and priests (indeed Exodus 28:31 talks of “the robe for the ephod”). And, just as he himself had been “brought up” (I Samuel 1:24-25 in both the Greek Text and Masoretic Text) to the sanctuary—the same verb as is also used of offering certain sacrifices there—so too his mother “brings up” this garment “periodically” (the same term is used for the “periodic” sacrifice). (Auld, <i>I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 49)</blockquote>
Hannah leaves Samuel in the care of Eli, the priest (I Samuel 1:24-28). Though she is not a daily part of her firstborn son’s life, she does visit him. Most English translations convey annual pilgrimages in conjunction with sacrifice: “each year” (ESV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “annual” (HCSB, MSG, NIV), “year to year” (ASV, KJV, NASB), “year by year” (NKJV), “every year” (CEV). The Hebrew, however, is not this explicit.
<p><a href=http://neareast.jhu.edu/bios/kyle-mccarter/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.</a> (b. 1945) notifies:
<blockquote><i>From time to time</I>...<i>the seasonal sacrifice</I> [I Samuel 2:19] [is in]...Hebrew <i>miyyāmîm yāmînâ</i>...<i>’et-zebah hayyāmîm</I>. As in I Samuel 1:3, 21 to translate these expressions “Year by year...the annual sacrifice” would be overprecise, even though an annual pilgrimage may in fact be involved here. (McCarter, <i>I Samuel (Anchor Bible)</I>, 84)</blockquote>
The notice regarding Samuel’s progress serves to indicate a passage of time (I Samuel 2:18-21). Alfons Schulz (1871-1947) approves:
<blockquote>I Samuel 2:19 delightfully relates how at the pilgrimage each year Hannah, the mother, brings her son, who serves in the sanctuary, a new robe—obviously because in the meantime he has ‘grown out of’ the old one: a splendid, childlike touch in a brief remark. (<a href=http://www.rel.tcu.edu/faculty_gunn.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David M. Gunn</a> [b. 1942], “Narrative Arts in the Books of Samuel,” <i>Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann</i> [1877-1927] <i>and Other Scholars 1906-1923</I>, 168-69)</blockquote>
Many have seen an irregularity as the term for coat is in the singular (I Samuel 2:19): Does Hannah return the same coat on each visit?
<p>One Midrash explains this perceived discrepancy with an ancient version of <a href=http://www.randomhouse.com/teens/annbrashares/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ann Brashares</a> [b.1967]’s <i>The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants</I>. <a href=http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100947 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Basil Herring</a> (b. 1947) retells:
<blockquote>The Bible tells us, “Moreover, his mother made him a little robe and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice” (I Samuel 2:19). Now the midrash...asks how it could be that she brought the same robe every year as he was growing up. Did he not outgrow it, as every mother knows? The answer, says the midrash, is that something miraculous occurred: although the child grew from year to year, he never outgrew the garment—it grew with him, it always fit, it was never too tight. Indeed, says the midrash, when he became the leader of Israel, Samuel continued to wear this robe long after his mother had died...What is the midrash trying to suggest? The answer, one might say, is that this mother’s robe was a reflection of her love—it was not static but dynamic; it changed with time; it grew and evolved, it took different forms and expressions, appropriate to the stages of life as Samuel himself went through his own phases...As a mother Hannah had found the key to allowing her love for Samuel to grow with him, in spite of the inevitable separation and distance that time would bring, allowing him to develop his own identity, making his own choices, his own mistakes, and his own life. (Herring, <i>The Jewish Imagination: Discourses on Contemporary Jewish Life</I>, 152)</blockquote>
Most interpreters have come to the logical conclusion that Hannah presents her son with new robes (I Samuel 2:19). Amos Oz (b. 1939) and <a href=https://twitter.com/faniaoz STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fania Oz-Salzberger</a> (b. 1960) praise:
<blockquote>Don’t let the singular noun form mislead you: she made him a <i>new</I> little coat every year, fit to size, and the biblical author recognizes the sweetness of that petit priest-child clothing [I Samuel 2:19]. For Hannah, not Bathsheba, is the earliest linchpin of the two faces of Jewish motherhood: great physical tenderness, and early scholarly sendoff. Heartbroken at the shrine or school gate, but decisively returning home to start next year’s little coat. (Oz and Oz-Salzberger, <i>Jews and Words</I>, 83)</blockquote>
Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) correlates:
<blockquote>In Scripture, garments often speak of the spiritual life (Isaiah 61:10; Zechariah 3:1-5; Ephesians 4:22-32; Colossians 3:8-17; I Peter 5:5), and a change of clothing symbolizes a new beginning (Genesis 35:2, 41:14, 45:22; Exodus 19:10; Revelation 3:18). Each year’s new garments spoke not only of a boy growing physically but also spiritually (I Samuel 2:21), and this reminds us of out Lord who “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52 NKJV). (Wiersbe, <I>Be Successful (1 Samuel): Attaining Wealth That Money Can’t Buy</I>, 29)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.randyfrazee.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Randy Frazee</a> (b. 1961) situates:
<blockquote>Just as Samuel’s mom-made robe got a little bigger each year [I Samuel 2:19], so did the assignment God had in mind for him. In the Upper Story perspective, God was preparing the young man to lead Israel through its own awkward adolescence. (Frazee, <i>The Heart of the Story: God’s Masterful Design to Restore His People</I>, 98)</blockquote>
Hannah bestows her son a “little robe” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “little coat” (KJV), “small coat” (NLT) or “clothes” (CEV) (I Samuel 2:19).
<p>Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) identifies:
<blockquote>While we cannot be sure about the nature of the “robe” Samuel wore (I Samuel 2:19), the word <i>me‘îl</I> for the priest’s robe is described at length in Exodus 28:31-35 and Exodus 39:22-26. Jonathan wears one (I Samuel 18:4), as do Saul (I Samuel, 24:5, 12) and even Samuel’s spirit (I Samuel 28:14). (Hamilton, <i>Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther</I>, 221)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.regentaudio.com/collections/eugene-peterson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene H. Peterson</a> (b. 1932) assumes:
<blockquote>The ephod that Hannah made for Samuel was a distinctive garment of some kind, worn by priests [I Samuel 2:19]. An elaborate description of the ephod worn by the high priest is provided in Exodus 28:5-14. The robe Hannah sewed must have been a simpler form. (Peterson, <i>First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 34)</blockquote>
<a href=http://trinitycollegechapel.com/about/memorials/brasses/kirkpatrick/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Alexander Francis Kirkpatrick</a> (1849-1940) surveys:
<blockquote>The Hebrew <i>mě‘īl</I> denotes a kind of long upper tunic worn by kings (I Chronicles 15:27), prophets (I Samuel 15:27), men of position (Job 2:12), women of rank (II Samuel 13:18). The term is applied to a part of the High Priest’s dress, <i>the robe</I> of the Ephod (Exodus 28:31), and it is suggested in the <i>Speaker’s Commentary</I> that “mention of the ephod and the robe as worn by the youthful Samuel taken in connexion with his after acts seems to point to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God in an age when the provisions of the Levitical law were not yet in full operation.” (Kirkpatrick, <i>The First Book of Samuel: with Map, Notes and Introduction</I>, 58)</blockquote>
Some interpreters have associated Samuel’s distinctive attire with a particular status. <a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/v-philips-long STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">V. Philips Long</a> (b. 1951) acknowledges:
<blockquote>The “little robe” provided by Hannah is probably an outer garment of some sort to be worn over the linen priestly ephod [I Samuel 2:19]. In both the Bible and the ancient Near East generally, special garments often carried symbolic significance or marked the wearer as holding a particular office or status. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 281)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> (b. 1952) and <a href=http://www.crossway.org/authors/kim-e-walton/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kim E. Walton</a> (b. 1954) bolster:
<blockquote>The word translated “robe” [I Samuel 2:19] refers not to everyday clothing but to a priestly garment (Exodus 28:31-34; I Chronicles 15:27). The garment described by this word was worn by others besides priests but was typically worn by someone with a particular status or authority. (Walton and Walton, <i>The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible</I>, 150)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.crandallu.ca/staff/keith-bodner/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Keith Bodner</a> (b. 1967) questions:
<blockquote>In two successive sentences there is a reference to Samuel’s garment (“But Samuel was serving in the LORD’s presence, a lad outfitted in a linen ephod. And a little robe his mother would make for him” [I Samuel 2:18-19]). Does this juxtaposition (priestly ephod, prophetic mantle) symbolize or prefigure his multiple offices? <a href=http://www.ajrsem.org/staffhome/staff090914/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ora Horn Prouser</a> [b. 1961] (1996:27-37) notes that often in I and II Samuel, “clothes make the man,” meaning “clothing” is found at a number of key moments in the narrative. (Bodner, <i>National Insecurity: A Primer on the First Book of Samuel</I>, 31)</blockquote>
<a href=http://uio.academia.edu/DianaEdelman STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Diana Vikander Edelman</a> (b. 1954) remarks:
<blockquote>The <i>me‘îl</I>, while a common piece of clothing for those of rank, seems to have been especially associated with the office of prophet (cf. I Samuel 2:19, 15:27; II Kings 2:13-18). (Edelman, <i>King Saul in the Historiography of Judah</I>, 245-46)</blockquote>
<a href=http://bibleseminary.academia.edu/DavidToshioTsumura STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Toshio Tsumura</a> (b. 1944) equates:
<blockquote><i>The small robe</I> which Hannah made for Samuel [I Samuel 2:19] may be a special garment for priests like the Akkadian <i>tēlītu</I> garment (cf. I Samuel 15:27, 28:14). (Tsumura, <i>The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 159)</blockquote>
Not all have been convinced that Samuel’s garments indicate status. Peter D. Miscall (b. 1943) differentiates:
<blockquote>The linen ephod is apparently part of his official garb at Shiloh [I Samuel 2:18]; the little robe is an annual gift from his mother and not necessarily any type of cultic attire [I Samuel 2:19]. (Miscall, <i>1 Samuel: A Literary Reading</i>, 17)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bibleprofessor.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James E. Smith</a> (b. 1939) dismisses:
<blockquote>The <b>robe</b> [I Samuel 2:19] was an outer garment of wool, woven throughout without seam, with holes for the head and arms, and reaching nearly to the ground. This garment was the ordinary dress of all classes of people. It has no special meaning except that in this handiwork, Hannah exhibited her motherly pride and care. (Smith, <i>1 & 2 Samuel (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 62)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.universitystory.gla.ac.uk/biography/?id=WH4502&type=P STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Mauchline</a> (1902-1984) concurs:
<blockquote>The little robe (I Samuel 2:19) or ‘small cloak’ which Hannah brought to Samuel on her annual visit to Shiloh was probably not an official vestment but an ordinary wearing garment, which expressed the mother’s care for her son. (Mauchline, <i>1 and 2 Samuel (New Century Bible)</I>, 52)</blockquote>
Regardless of its meaning, Hannah insures that Samuel is well dressed. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) determines:
<blockquote>The little robe which the mother makes for her son year by year and brings with her when she comes on pilgrimage is an indication of her motherly care [I Samuel 2:19]—the boy would grow out of the previous year’s robe—and pride; such a garment is a sign of distinction (cf. the mantle in Isaiah 3:6). (Hertzberg, <i>I and II Samuel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library)</I>, 35)</blockquote>
The robe is emphasized in its Hebrew positioning (I Samuel 2:19). <a href=http://www.janfokkelman.nl/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J.P. Fokkelman</a> (b. 1940) illumines:
<blockquote>The narrator ensures that we do not underestimate the connotations of the garment and prepares us for any symbolism by an inversion in his second line (I Samuel 2:19a). Even though it is the grammatical object “a small coat” is conspicuously placed in initial position. The article of clothing complements the priestly apron [I Samuel 2:18] and is going to provide the boy with the warmth he is not often to be given by the mountain climate in Ephraim. The small coat symbolizes, and is a substitute for maternal warmth. (Fokkelman, <i>Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume IV: Vow and Desire</I>, 124)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/Heller STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Roy L. Heller</a> (b. 1963) accents:
<blockquote>His mother...regularly brings him a handmade <i>mě‘îl qātōn</I> (“little robe”) from time to time when she comes to sacrifice with her husband [I Samuel 2:19]. This robe is far from negligible in the context of the story. The syntax of the first clause of I Samuel 2:19 actually fronts the object and relegates the subject, “his mother,” to the very end; the Hebrew reads: <i>ûmě‘îl qātōn ta‘ăśeh lô’immô</I> (“and a <i>little robe</I> she-used-to-make-for-him his-mother”). In the Exodus traditions, the robe was part of the priestly vestments (Exodus 28:4, 31, 34, 29:5, 39:22-26). It is, therefore, unusual that his mother should be making it; he should be given one due to his priestly activities, as with the ephod...The literary significance of <i>mě‘îl</I> (“robe”) in the books of Samuel, however, reveals a very different function. It is, consistently, the article of clothing most closely identified with political, usually royal, power (I Samuel 2:19, 18;4, 24:5, 12; II Samuel 13:18). It is moreover, the article of clothing that will identify Samuel himself in his final confrontation with Saul during his life (I Samuel 15:27) as well as the one after his death (I Samuel 28:14). The little robe worn by the boy Samuel, therefore, serves as a foreshadowing of the political power that he will exercise, and will desperately hold onto, in the later stories about him. In its immediate context here, however, the boy Samuel’s “little robe” serves as the positive introductory image that leads, almost immediately, to Eli’s blessing of his parents [I Samuel 2:20]. Unlike the ineffective speech that Eli will pronounce in the next section [I Samuel 2:22-36], his blessing here leads to YHWH’s regard for Hannah, her conception, and her bearing three sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:21]. (Heller, <i>Power, Politics, and Prophecy: The Character of Samuel and the Deuteronomistic Evaluation of Prophecy</i>, 54)</blockquote>
Some have been bothered by the robe remaining perpetually “little” (I Samuel 2:19 NASB). Henry Preserved Smith (1847-1927) presumes:
<blockquote>There seems no reason to find fault with the statement on the ground that as the boy grew it would no longer be a <i>little</I> robe [I Samuel 2:19]. The narrator has the early years especially in mind. Doubtless the cloth was spun and woven by his mother, as well as the robe cut and sewed by her. (Smith, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 19)</blockquote>
Even as a child, Samuel is dressed as a little man (I Samuel 2:18-19). Martin Sicker (b. 1931) considers:
<blockquote>As the child grew, every year <i>his mother made him a little robe</I> [I Samuel 2:19], “a long outer garment worn by people of rank or special status.” It has been suggested that the reason for pointing out that she made him a <i>little</I> robe, it being self-evident that the robe for a toddler would have to be small, is that robes usually were worn by grown men and not by children. Dressing the child in a robe, which was replaced yearly with a new one, so that he always appeared well groomed and clothed as a small man, markedly different in appearance from other children, served as tangible affirmation of Hannah’s conviction that Samuel was destined to be a man of great importance in Israel...It may be observed that although Samuel was not and never would be eligible for service as a priest [Leviticus 18:1-7; I Samuel 1:1] even from the time he was a toddler his mother dressed him in clothes clearly emblematic of the officiating priesthood, effectively emulating Moses who, in consecrating Aaron and his sons as priests, invested them with visible emblems of their holiness, including the distinctive ephod and robe [Exodus 28:1-4]. (Sicker, <i>The First Book of Samuel: A Study in Prophetic History</I>, 33-34)</blockquote>
<a href=http://stjohnswalhalla.org/page.aspx?p=staff_and_key_contacts_pastor_honeycutt_bio STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frank G. Honeycutt</a> (b. 1957) illustrates:
<blockquote>I read a book long ago written by <a href=http://www.randallbalmer.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Randall Balmer</a> [b. 1954], who teaches religion at <a href=http://dartmouth.edu/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dartmouth College</a> in <a href=http://www.hanovernh.org/Pages/index STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Hanover</a>, <a href=http://www.nh.gov/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">New Hampshire</a>. Randall had a very dominant pastor father who wanted his son to grow up and preach the Word. There’s a great picture in the book of Randall at age six, standing behind his birthday present that year: a miniature pulpit just his size, every hair in place with Vitalis. This is how I usually think about Samuel in our lesson—dutiful, obedient, cherubic, small; robed with his little slippers. A very, very good little boy. (Honeycutt, <i>Jesus and the Family: Crisis and Conversion in the American Household</i>, 58)</blockquote>
Samuel will come to be associated with a robe for the remainder of his career. John Woodhouse (b. 1949) reveals:
<blockquote>Samuel would wear a robe for the rest of his life (and beyond!), and his robe will feature at two important points later in the story (I Samuel 15:27 and I Samuel 28:14). (Woodhouse, <i>1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word)</I>, 56)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.janfokkelman.nl/>J.P. Fokkelman</a> (b. 1940) reviews:
<blockquote>The reader, who has taken a look further on, now knows what Hannah is not able to foresee: the coat (<i>me‘īl</I>) [I Samuel 2:19] is to accompany Samuel constantly and is to be an essential attribute of his, in his office as prophet, during two dramatic encounters with Saul [I Samuel 15:27, 28:14). There the garment has to do with the doom and the death of the first king...Hannah is not only linked through her poetry, to the monarchy which is the future of the country, but to this concrete object which she herself makes and replaces annually. Via the small coat she protects Samuel right from the start in his new stage of life, which stage is never to come to an end, that of being a Nazirite [I Samuel 1:11]. That way whilst remaining in absentia for most of the year she nevertheless keeps on looking after the boy whom we know is to grow into a kingmaker. (Fokkelman, <i>Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume IV: Vow and Desire</I>, 124)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.carleton.ca/chum/people/robert-polzin/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert Polzin</a> (b. 1937) echoes:
<blockquote>From the earliest days of his youth to his resurrection in I Samuel 28:11-20, Samuel wears a robe representing the royalty that was wrapped around Israel during the course of the story. When Samuel first started ministering to the LORD at Shiloh, his mother Hannah began a practice of making a small robe (<i>me‘îl qāton</I>), which she would take him each year when she went up to Shiloh (I Samuel 2:19). That young, berobed Samuel is now an old man and dead, and the robe has become a shroud [I Samuel 28:14]. During his career, Samuel’s robe was torn by Saul (I Samuel 15:27), an action Samuel interprets as the tearing away of the kingdom from Saul. Jonathan’s robe played a similar role when he stripped it off to hand over to David (I Samuel 18:4), again signifying the transfer of royal power, the kingdom, from Saul’s house to David’s. Then David himself cut off the end of Saul’s robe in I Samuel 24:5, presenting Saul and the reader with a cleaner, more clearcut image of the seizing of kingship. When Saul had seized Samuel’s robe, the kingdom was torn from Saul’s grasp; when David cut Saul’s robe, it was delivered up into his hands. This robe of royalty appears one final time in I Samuel, now wrapped around a dead person. In line with the conjoined character zones of Samuel and Saul throughout the story, Samuel is clothed in a dead man’s robe as he foretells the imminent death of Saul and his sons. The robe as shroud enfolds Saul’s death and well as Samuel’s. (Polzin, <i>Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part Two: 1 Samuel</i>, 218)</blockquote>
Meir Shalev (b. 1948) connects:
<blockquote>I see Samuel’s robe as his trademark garment, akin to Elijah’s mantle [II Kings 2:11-14]. Samuel’s custom of always wearing a robe originated in his early childhood, when his mother Hannah gave him over to the House of the Lord at Shiloh [I Samuel 2:19]. The “little robe”—these are the Bible’s touching words—was the gift she would bring on her annual visit to her son who grew bigger each year, and it became the symbol of her love, and her main connection with him. I imagine that Samuel’s enormous rage after the war with Amalek, when Saul clutched and accidentally tore the hem of his robe [I Samuel 15:27], derived from Samuel’s deep emotional bond with his garment. (Shalev, <i>Beginnings: Reflections on the Bible's Intriguing Firsts</I>, 84)</blockquote>
Significantly, First Samuel sandwiches notices of Samuel’s growth (I Samuel 2:18-21, 26) between accounts of the shortcomings of Eli’s family (I Samuel 2:12-17, 22-25, 27-36).
<p><a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=2 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggemann</a> (b. 1933) observes:
<blockquote>“The rise of Samuel” is narrated in counterpoint to the account of “Eli’s fall” [I Samuel 2:11-36]. Samuel’s rise is punctuated by a series of carefully placed statements reporting his growth to manhood and his maturation in faith [I Samuel 2:18-21, 26]. There is irony in the fact that he is nurtured in faith by Eli, the very one whom he displaces. (Brueggemann, <i>First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 22)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=14 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James D. Newsome, Jr.</a> (b. 1931) asks:
<blockquote>As if the final compiler of this story wished to weave a tapestry, the dark fibers of the priests’ sacrilege are interrupted at important points by the emerging bright thread of young Samuel’s purity and innocense (I Samuel 2:18-20, 26). And lying side by side, the two patterns of behavior seem all the more at odds. How could Hophni and Phinehas stoop so low, we are asked to wonder. How could the boy remain so essentially good in such a corrupted atmosphere? (Newsome, <i>1 Samuel, 2 Samuel (Knox Preaching Guides)</i>, 21)</blockquote>
Ben F. Philbeck, Jr. (1931-1989) praises:
<blockquote>The insertion of these brief verses [I Samuel 2:18-21] describing God’s blessings on Samuel’s family demonstrates the author’s mastery of the storyteller’s art. The passage adds little to the progress of the narrative, but the account of Samuel’s simple ministry before the Lord and of Hannah’s good fortune serve as a perfect foil for the misfortunes which are about to befall Eli’s house [I Samuel 2:27-36]. (<a href=http://www.sbhla.org/downloads/795-221.pdf>Clifton J. Allen</a> [1901-1986], General Articles, 1 Samuel - Nehemiah (Broadman Bible Commentary), 17)</blockquote>
Samuel is intentionally juxtaposed with Eli’s sons. <a href=http://asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-bill-t-arnold/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bill T. Arnold</a> (b. 1955) encapsulates:
<blockquote>The positive evaluation of Samuel and his family...begins with a general statement, setting the tone for I Samuel 2:18-21: “Samuel was ministering before the LORD—a boy wearing a linen ephod” [I Samuel 2:18]...This ideal scene, so lovingly describing the adorned little priest, is surely a dramatic contrast to the grasping and avaricious sons of Eli. Through the years, Eli comes to appreciate this devout family, blessing them and praying that Yahweh will honor their faithfulness [I Samuel 2:20]. (Arnold, <i>1 & 2 Samuel (NIV Application Commentary)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.campbell.edu/CONNECTwithbrFacultyandStaff/TonyWCartledge.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tony W. Cartledge</a> (b. 1951) contrasts:
<blockquote>The narrator purposefully punctures the account of Eli’s worthless sons with periodic glimpses at Hannah’s more worthy child. While Hophni and Phinehas were appropriating Israel’s sacrifices for their own gain [I Samuel 2:12-17], “Samuel was ministering before the LORD, a boy wearing a linen ephod” (I Samuel 2:18). (Cartledge, <i>1 & 2 Samuel: Bible Commentary (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 55)</blockquote>
Mary J. Evans (b. 1949) expounds:
<blockquote>In contrast with the grasping materialism of Hophni and Phinehas [I Samuel 2:12-17] is the thankful service offered by Samuel and his mother. <b>Samuel was ministering before the LORD</b> [I Samuel 2:18], presumably as his age allowed under Eli’s direction. The ongoing contribution of Hannah—giving Samuel to God [I Samuel 1:11] and giving clothes to Samuel [I Samuel 2:19]—is mentioned, alongside Eli’s blessing [I Samuel 2:20]. It appears that Eli did not participate in his sons’ irreverent greed, and his cooperation with those coming to offer sacrifices contrasts with the bullying of his sons and their servants. God’s gracious response to this obedient service, giving Hannah five more children [I Samuel 2:21], provides a further contrast with God’s condemnation of Eli’s sons (I Samuel 2:27-36). (Evans, <i>1 & 2 Samuel (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</i>)</blockquote>
Dale Ralph Davis (b. 1944) notices:
<blockquote>One cannot help but observe the contrast between I Samuel 2:19-21 and I Samuel 2:22-26, a delightful scene set against an ominous one...There is a clear parallelism between the two scenes, but the parallels highlight the differences. Here (I Samuel 2:19-21), Yahweh is giving life, there he has resolved death. (Davis, <i>Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel, Volume 1: 1 Samuel 1-14</I>, 32)</blockquote>
<a href=http://theology.nd.edu/people/faculty/francesca-murphy/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Francesca Aran Murphy</a> (b. 1960) adds:
<blockquote>In antithesis and parallel to Eli, Samuel...points us toward the monarchy: his role in the story to come will be as the radar for the legitimacy of Israel’s kings. The priest of the Lord will elect and deselect Yahweh’s kings. (Murphy, <i>1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</i>, 26)</blockquote>
Samuel’s superiority over Eli’s sons may be evident even in his clothing (I Samuel 2:18-19). <a href=http://www.regentaudio.com/collections/eugene-peterson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene H. Peterson</a> (b. 1932) contemplates:
<blockquote>Whereas the scoundrel sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are characterized by a story in which they aggressively grab whatever they can get from the holy place [I Samuel 2:12-17], Samuel, the blessed son, is characterized by a story in which he is clothed year after year in a succession of priestly robes, custom-sown by his mother, suited to his growing stature [I Samuel 2:18-21]. Clothing can either disguise or reveal our true identity. Eli’s sons, dressed in their inherited, hand-me-down priestly robes, <i>looked</I> like priests but were, in fact, wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15). The handmade, custom-tailored robe worn by Hannah’s son <i>revealed</I> his true priestly identity. (Peterson, <i>First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 34)</blockquote>
Linking these accounts reminds the reader that this mixed bag, a holy place run by an unholy family, marks the atmosphere in which Samuel is raised (I Samuel 2:12-21). <a href=http://fuller.edu/faculty/jgoldingay/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Goldingay</a> (b. 1942) resolves:
<blockquote>This is the context in which Samuel is brought up! Did Hannah know? What chance is there that he will grow up in the proper way, as a “boy” functioning among the other “boys” implicated in the abuses undertaken by Eli’s sons [I Samuel 2:12-17]? Fortunately Samuel is growing up “in Yahweh’s presence” as well as “in Eli’s presence” [I Samuel 2:11]. (Goldingay, <i>1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone</I>, 29)</blockquote>
<a href=http://manuscripts.ptsem.edu/collection/29>Andrew W. Blackwood</a> (1882-1966) assures:
<blockquote>A good child can grow up with evil men, much as a white lily may emerge from the blackest muck. More than a little depends on the character of the original stock. Even when forced to dwell among older fellows as base as the sons of Eli, a lad like Samuel keeps on serving the God of his mother and father. In army and navy training camps, here at home and on countless battlefields beyond the seven seas, young men who had loved God back at home kept on being loyal despite all the seductions of a world at war. (Blackwood, <i>Preaching From Samuel</I>, 33)</blockquote>
Hannah’s bestowing Samuel with a robe is typically seen as an act of love (I Samuel 2:19). It is a means for Hannah to see her son (I Samuel 2:19). <a href=http://www.smu.edu/Dedman/Academics/Departments/ReligiousStudies/FacultyStaff/Frolov STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Serge Frolov</a> (b. 1959) footnotes:
<blockquote>The verbal forms used in I Samuel 2:19a identify both actions that it refers to as equally repetitive; the sequence ימימה מימים לו והעלתה אמו תעשה־לו קטן ומעיל should therefore be rendered ‘and his mother used to make him a little overcoat and regularly bring it up to him’. In other words, Hannah cleverly used the natural process of the boy’s physical growth, referred to in I Samuel 2:21b, to stay in touch with him: before each pilgrimage she would make a new, presumably larger, coat and bring it to Shiloh. The King James Version obscures this nuance by using indicative simple past forms (“His mother made him a little coat and brought it to him from year to year”). (Frolov, <i>The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1-8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives</I>, 103)</blockquote>
Like Little Orphan Annie’s beloved locket, the robe serves as a tangible reminder to Samuel that his mother loves him. She is present even when she is absent.
<p><a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/emerrill/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene H. Merrill</a> (b. 1934) interprets:
<blockquote>Though Samuel’s mother had given Samuel to the LORD [I Samuel 1:11], she retained her maternal love and responsibility. She came yearly to Shiloh to attend to the needs of her son [I Samuel 2:19]. Nor did the LORD forget Hannah. As is so often the case, He gave her not only what she had prayed for but much more—in her case three sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:21] (cf. the example of Rachel, Genesis 30:22-24; 35:16-18). (<a href=http://www.walvoord.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John F. Walvoord</a> [1910-2002] and <a href=http://www.dts.edu/read/roy-zuck-tribute/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Roy B. Zuck</a> [1932-2013], <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament</I>, 435)</blockquote>
<a href=http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/lec47/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joan E. Cook</a> infers:
<blockquote>After the intercalated story of Eli’s corrupt sons [I Samuel 2:12-17] (further reason for Hannah to wonder about her own son’s safety) the narrative implies that Hannah lived in Ramah with Elkanah when the conclusion explains that they made the annual trip together, and each year she took him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. She did not completely relinquish care of him, but continued to look after his well-being. And we can be sure she took the opportunity to make certain that her son was receiving proper care from his mentor at the shrine. Eli blessed the couple, praying that they would have other children, after which Hannah had three more sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:20-21]. (Cook, <I>Hannah’s Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations of the Story of Hannah</i>, 40)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/stephens-lytch/11/b20/675 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephens G. Lytch</a> (b. 1953) envisions:
<blockquote>Her love was evident in the gift that she took him on her regular visits to Shiloh. She always brought him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. It was nothing extravagant, but one can imagine the love she poured into each stitch as she made the robe, thinking of her son and whispering prayers of gratitude to God for the gift of his life. One hopes that the presents we give our loved ones are as loaded with care and gratitude. (<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=29 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. Bartlett</a> [b. 1941] and <a href=http://www.barbarabrowntaylor.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barbara Brown Taylor</a> [b. 1951], <i>Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration</I>, 148)</blockquote>
Dallas A. Brauninger (b. 1943) relates:
<blockquote>Someone sees when a parent does the little sustaining things for a child in the name of love. Parents will know later what this teaches a child. So be of good courage, you who are a parent, for being a parent is a holy trust. (Brauninger, <i>Lectionary Worship Aids: Series V, Cycle C</I>, 24)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.elizabethgeorge.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Elizabeth George</a> (b. 1944) applies:
<blockquote>How does a woman who loves God and her family fill her days when her nest is empty? Note Hannah’s example. Mark it well! Rather than give in to sadness, Hannah worked on long-distance love. Each year she made Samuel a little robe and took it to him (I Samuel 2:19). (George, <i>The Remarkable Women of the Bible: And Their Message for Your Life Today</I>, 181)</blockquote>
Hannah’s attentiveness to her son moves the priest Eli; he pronounces blessing and she births five more children (I Samuel 2:20-21). Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) comments:
<blockquote>As with the midwives in the Exodus story (Exodus 1:21), Hannah’s faithfulness was rewarded with the gift of a family (<i>cf</I>. Psalm 127:3). Significantly, this prosperity is connected with Eli’s priestly blessing, and the relationship between the aged priest and Elkanah’s family fulfills the ideal of a happy co-operation between priesthood and people which is so desiderated in I Samuel 1:12-17. (Gordon, <i>I & II Samuel: A Commentary</I>, 82-83)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.jtc.edu.au/profile/antony-campbell STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Antony F. Campbell</a> (b. 1934) inspects:
<blockquote>Samuel and his family stand in sharp contrast. Samuel is in the service of the LORD. The little robe, renewed each year, is a pointer to the child’s growth [I Samuel 2:19]; the reference to the repeated visits and the birth of five more children evokes the passage of time [I Samuel 2:21]. But, above all, it is symbolic of the blessing and favor bestowed on the family, in direct connection with Samuel (I Samuel 2:20). While Eli blesses Elkanah and his wife, the weight of his blessing seems to fall on the man; when its fulfillment is reported, the emphasis is on the LORD’s visiting the woman. And Samuel grew in the presence of the LORD (I Samuel 2:21b), while the sons of Eli were growing in contempt of the LORD (I Samuel 2:17). Eli is treated gently (I Samuel 2:20); the reproach is reserved for his sons. (Campbell, <I>1 Samuel (Forms of the Old Testament Literature)</i>, 49)</blockquote>
This marks Hannah’s last appearance in Bible’s narrative (I Samuel 2:18-21). Presumably tending to her children, she is effectively written out of the text.
<p>David Jobling (b. 1941) discusses:
<blockquote>Hannah assists and monitors Samuel’s progress at the shrine when each year she takes him a new robe [I Samuel 2:19]. When we last hear of her she has become the mother of a large family, a family that, we are led to believe, she owes to the priestly blessing of Eli [I Samuel 2:20-21]. It is not clear that either she or Elkanah wants these children. (Jobling, <i>1 Samuel (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</i>, 133)</blockquote>
Hillel I. Millgram (b. 1931) investigates:
<blockquote>With this touching picture of Hannah settled among her growing family, sewing a new little robe for her son and bringing it to him each year [I Samuel 2:19], Hannah fades from the view of history. And were this all there is to the story, the mystery of the author’s reason for opening the book with Hannah would remain unsolved. But this is not all. Besides her great act of commitment and renunciation, she left us another legacy, commonly known as “Hannah’s Prayer” [I Samuel 2:1-10]. (Millgram, <i>The Invention of Monotheist Ethics: Exploring the First Book of Samuel</I>, 34)</blockquote>
The woman whose story began with bemoaning her barrenness, is remembered as a mother. Lillian R. Klein (b. 1929) attends:
<blockquote>Hannah’s narrative concludes with a comment on her annual visit with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice [I Samuel 2:19]. At that time, her motherhood is emphasized: it is not “Hannah” but “his [Samuel’s] mother” who makes a “little robe” and brings it to him at Shiloh...Hannah’s image is secure indeed: she is recognized as mother of Samuel — who becomes a prophet, judge, and king-maker — and as a good woman. (<a href=http://religiousstudies.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1699&subpage=profile STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carol L. Meyers</a> [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and <a href=https://vivo.brown.edu/display/rkraemer STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ross Shepard Kraemer</a> [b. 1948], “Hannah”, <i>Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and New Testament</i>, 91)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.hlg.edu/academics/personnel-bio.php?id=602 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert D. Bergen</a> (b. 1954) attributes:
<blockquote>Samuel’s mother annually brought Samuel a robe (<i>mě‘îl</I>) [I Samuel 2:19], a longer outer garment worn by members of the Levitical tribe involved in priestly service (cf. Leviticus 8:7). This thoughtful gift from Hannah suggests that although Samuel was gone from the household in Ramah, he was still very much in Hannah’s heart (cf. Proverbs 31:19-21). Through the use of clothing motif in portraying Samuel’s career (cf. I Samuel 15:27), the writer suggests that Samuel’s life was the outcome of a splendid mother of faith. (Bergen, <i>1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary)</I>, 79-80)</blockquote>
Samuel may be gone from Hannah’s day to day life but he is not forgotten. Her bringing a “little robe cut to his size” (I Samuel 2:19 MSG) reveals that she keeps watch over him and loves him continually though her physical presence in his life is only sporadic. In kind, Samuel, one of Israel’s greatest figures, is remembered more as the son of his mother than that of his father. Hannah’s love, embodied in his robe, carries him throughout his life.
<p><font color="#66CD00">What is Hannah trying to communicate by bringing Samuel a new robe (I Samuel 2:19)? What does the garment mean to Samuel? What other items could Hannah have brought her son? Were you Samuel, what would you have wanted your parents to send you? What does Samuel’s coat speak to parents who cannot be involved in the daily activities of their children? Does Samuel’s adult attire hinder his experience of childhood? If Hannah provides Samuel’s little robe, who bestows his ephod (I Samuel 2:18-19)? Does the ephod complement or conflict with the robe provided by Hannah? What is the desired relationship between clergy and lay people? When has a child consistently dressed as an adult? Who do you know of who wore the same attire throughout life; who has a signature outfit? What did your parents or guardians dress you in? If there is a specific attire associated with your profession; if so who provided your first specimen? Do you keep anything associated with your parents? What objects represent love to you?</font>
<p>Contrary to the natural interest of many readers, the Bible is silent regarding Hannah’s emotional response to having her son raised apart from her.
<p><a href=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Alter/Alter.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert Alter</a> (b. 1935) indicates:
<blockquote><i>And a little cloak would his mother make him </I> [I Samuel 2:19]. This is a poignant instance of the expressive reticence of biblical narrative. We have been told nothing about Hannah’s feelings as a mother after her separation from the child for whom she so fervently prayed [I Samuel 1:10-11]. This minimal notation of Hannah’s annual gesture of making a little cloak for the son she has “lent” to the LORD beautifully intimates the love she preserves for him. The garment, fashioned as a gift of maternal love, stands in contrast to the ephod, the acolyte’s official garb for his cultic office. (Alter, <i>The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel</I>, 2)</blockquote>
The Bible’s silence has not prevented many a reader from empathizing with the lonely mother. <a href=https://www.facebook.com/janet.jagers.5 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Janet S. Jagers</a> (b. 1942) infers:
<blockquote>Hannah continues to see her son each year [I Samuel 2:19]. I imagine she must have treasured the opportunity to talk with him, catch up with the latest news, and make sure he was all right. How hard do you think it was for her to leave him at the end of each yearly visit? Yet we see not even a hint of sorrow in her actions, just gratefulness. She continues to sacrifice and worship the Lord, just as she had done before Samuel was born [I Samuel 1:3-8]. (Jagers, <i>Women at the Well: A Five-Week Study of Women in the Bible</I>, 80)</blockquote>
<a href=http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/klagsbrun-francine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Francine Klagsbrun</a> (b. 1931) laments:
<blockquote>The loss Hannah feels after relinquishing her child touches us through an exquisitely sensitive detail. Each year when she and Elkanah make their pilgrimage to Shiloh, she brings the young Samuel, a little robe that she has made herself (I Samuel 2:19). She sees her son just once a year, we learn from this detail, and her only way of measuring his growth is through the new robe she sews for each visit. Hannah had promised her child away before she knew how quickly she would fall in love with him; now the robe is her ongoing embrace. (Gail Twersky Reimer [b. 1950] and Judith A. Kates [b. 1941], <i>Beginning Anew: A Woman’s Companion to the High Holy Days</I>, 101)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.watchamerica.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Pinkston</a> (b. 1937) consoles:
<blockquote>Once a year, his mother came to visit Samuel, bringing him a little coat which she had made when she and her husband came to offer their seasonal sacrifices [I Samuel 2:19]...However, God knew of the empty feeling that Hannah experienced each year as she left her little boy behind. God had mercy upon Hannah and she had three sons and two daughters because of her commitment and generosity to God in turning her firstborn over to Him for His Service [I Samuel 2:20-1]...Samuel became a prophet and Israel’s last judge. (Pinkston, <i>Our Lost National Identity: Tracing the Lineage of Israel’s Lost Ten Tribes</i>, 103)</blockquote>
Hannah and her husband, Elkanah, have been presented as paragons of parenthood. Joe O. Lewis (b. 1935) extols:
<blockquote>Contrary to Eli’s sons [I Samuel 2:12-17], Samuel’s parents are models of devotion. Hannah saw her son annually and brought him a new robe each year [I Samuel 2:19]. The story hints at the difference in Hannah’s attitude during these years. Her burden has been removed. In subsequent years Hannah bore five more children (I Samuel 2:21). Eli’s blessing referred each year to the vow in which Hannah “asked” for a child (I Samuel 1:20) and “lent” him to God. Both words are the same and reflect the meaning of Samuel’s name. During those years, Samuel “grew”; literally he “became great” with the Lord (I Samuel 2:21). (Lewis, <i>1 & 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles (Layman’s Bible Book Commentary)</I>, 17)</blockquote>
The life of Samuel’s parents, like his own, centers around worship. John Woodhouse (b. 1949) notices:
<blockquote>This [I Samuel 2:18-21] reminds us of the beginning of our story. It all began with those visits to Shiloh that were so miserable for Hannah year after year (I Samuel 1:3-7). The annual pilgrimage was still taking place, but now it was a time for Hannah’s tender motherly love to find expression in the new robe she brought each year for her growing boy. We can easily picture the care with which that robe was made each year — each year a little bigger! (Woodhouse, <i>1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word)</I>, 56)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/grenville.kent STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Grenville J.R. Kent</a> (b. 1965) studies:
<blockquote>After the birth, Elkanah maintains his worship cycle, while Hannah breaks it only until the weaning (I Samuel 1:21-23). Then she brings him a new robe ימימה מימים (from year to year, literally from days to days) (I Samuel 2:19). Thus it is worship and sacrifice that provide the rhythm of their lives, and Hannah’s worship of Yahweh is stylistically linked to her pregnancy, subtly advancing the theme that the baby is God-given in answer to prayer. (Kent, <i>Say It Again, Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1 Samuel 28</I>, 104)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.fpcpottstown.org/our-staff/index.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Karen Pidcock-Lester</a> (b. 1956) characterizes:
<blockquote>Hannah and Elkanah...cherish their son. No one can dispute that. They have waited long and prayed fervently for his arrival. But as much as they love Samuel, their lives are shaped not by their devotion to him, but by their devotion to God. They worship, praise, sacrifice for, give thanks to, submit to, and serve not Samuel, but God. They recognize that God has different plans for Samuel from what they might have envisioned, but they surrender their plans and submit to God’s. They do what they can to help Samuel fulfill God’s purposes for his life, “making a little robe and taking it to him each year” [I Samuel 2:19]. (<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=29 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. Bartlett</a> [b. 1941] and <a href=http://www.barbarabrowntaylor.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barbara Brown Taylor</a> [b. 1951], <i>Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration</I>, 148)</blockquote>
Hannah actively seeks God’s will for her son. <a href=http://www.zionsvillelutheran.org/index.php/main/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Steven E. Albertin</a> (b. 1949) correlates:
<blockquote>Hannah making her yearly visit to the temple to give her son the gift of a little robe she had made for him [I Samuel 2:19]. It is a very simple and tender picture of mother expressing her love for her son. But to our modern eyes the tenderness of this picture begins to fade when we realize that this yearly visit would never have even been necessary if Hannah had not already taken the drastic action of giving her son away. Contrary to our world, where our children are constantly worshiped and adored, here we see a parent whose focus was not on pampering her son but on worshiping God. Hannah’s willingness to giver her son to the Lord and only to be able to visit him occasionally in the temple is stunning when compared to how parents treat their children today. (Albertin, <a href=http://www.pasadenacommunitychurch.org/contact-us/pastors-2/dr-charley-reeb.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Charles D. Reeb</a> [b. 1973] and <a href=http://www.stonehill.edu/directory/richard-gribble/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard E. Gribble</a> [b. 1952], <i>Sermons on the First Readings: Cycle C</I>, 62)</blockquote>
Hannah not only seeks God’s will, she participates in it. Uriel Simon (b. 1929) understands:
<blockquote>Evidently the narrator mentions the lad’s holy apparel so that he can juxtapose it to the little robe, thus suggesting that the robe, too, is one of his sacred garments [I Samuel 2:18-19]. If this is true, Hannah’s motivation for making her son a new robe every year is not concern that he be well-dressed but a desire to continue her act of giving. For her, the dedication of her son to service in the sanctuary is not a one-time deed, but one renewed each year by the recurrent donation of a sacred robe to the lad who serves in the sanctuary. (Simon [translated by <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lenn-schramm/25/a98/14a STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lenn J. Schramm</a>], <i>Reading Prophetic Narratives</i>, 29)</blockquote>
Samuel becomes a great man, no less than a kingmaker. His life trajectory begins with a mother who put God’s will for her child’s life above all else. May we do the same.
<p><font color="#66CD00">How do Hannah’s consistent worship patterns contribute to Samuel’s development? Does worship characterize your life? What are the consequences to Hannah and Samuel of his being raised away from her? Did the absence of his parents in adolescence effect Samuel’s demeanor later in life? What would be the psychological results of Samuel’s unusual upbringing? In what ways have you given your child to God?</font>
<p>“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” - attributed to <a href=http://www.frederickdouglass.org/douglass_bio.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frederick Douglass</a> (1818-1895)Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-7999390815825603622014-12-26T15:00:00.000-08:002014-12-26T15:00:00.167-08:00Two Turtledoves (Luke 2:24)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kJ7pKMiAGPw/VJ2vsRVBRdI/AAAAAAAAI-U/-U57xYosWsc/s1600/TwoTurtleDoves.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="114.8" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kJ7pKMiAGPw/VJ2vsRVBRdI/AAAAAAAAI-U/-U57xYosWsc/s320/TwoTurtleDoves.jpg" /></a></div><b>What did Mary and Joseph offer as a sacrifice at the time of purification? A pair of turtledoves and two young pigeons (Luke 2:24)</b>
<p>The Gospel of Luke diligently documents the obedience of the infant Jesus’ parents (Luke 2:21-24). On the eighth day, Jesus is circumcised and formally given the name that is above all names (Luke 2:21). The third gospel also records that the baby is presented at the temple (Luke 2:21-38).
<p>While there, Jesus’ earthly parents provide the requisite offerings as dictated by the Old Testament’s statutes (Luke 2:22-24).
<blockquote>And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (Luke 2:22-24 NASB)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Stein</a> (b. 1935) asks:
<blockquote>Why did Luke describe the sacrifice [Luke 2:22-24]? Was it purely for historical reasons? Was it to demonstrate that Joseph and Mary obeyed the law? Or was it because he expected his readers to know that according to Leviticus 12:8 the normal sacrifice involved a lamb and a dove or pigeon and thus to understand that Joseph and Mary were of a “humble state” (Luke 1:48), i.e. too poor to be able to afford a lamb? Certainty is impossible, but the latter explanation fits well with the Lukan emphasis in Luke 1:48, 52-53, 2:8. That Mary offered a dove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6) for her purification indicates that the mother of God’s Son also needed the forgiveness and redemption that her son brought. (The description of Mary’s offering also suggests that Joseph and Mary were not yet in possession of the rich gifts of the wise men mentioned in Matthew 2:11, i.e., the wise men had not yet come. Cf. also Matthew 2:7, 16.) (Stein, <i>Luke (New American Commentary)</I>, 114)</blockquote>
Luke specifies that Jesus’ parents, in accordance with the “law of Moses”, offer a pair of “turtledoves” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV)/“doves” (CEV, MSG, NIV) or “young pigeons” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) (Luke 2:24).
<p>The Greek terms are unambiguous. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) delineates:
<blockquote>λευγος (Luke 14:19) is a ‘pair’, originally a ‘yoke’. νοσσός is the ‘young of a bird’, and περιτέρα (Luke 3:22) ‘pigeon, dove’. (Marshall, <i>The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 18)</blockquote>
<a href=http://archives.sbts.edu/special-collections/archibald-thomas-robertson-papers/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A.T. Robertson</a> (1863-1934) relates:
<blockquote><I>“A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”</I> (λευγος τρυγόνων ἢ δύο νοσσοὺς περιστερων) [Luke 2:24]... is the offering of the poor, costing about sixteen cents, while a lamb would cost nearly two dollars. The “young of pigeons” is the literal meaning. (Robertson (revised and updated by Wesley J. Perschbacher [1932-2012]), <i>The Gospel according to Luke (Word Pictures in the New Testament)</i>, 43)</blockquote>
While Luke apparently alludes to the Old Testament, it is uncertain precisely what the gospel has in mind. <a href=http://carleton.ca/chum/people/steve-wilson/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">S.G. Wilson</a> (b. 1942) acknowledges:
<blockquote>Despite the specific quotations from Exodus 13:2, 12; Leviticus 12:2ff, Luke’s narrative is not wholly clear. (Wilson, <i>Luke and the Law</I>, 21)</blockquote>
It cannot even be certain if Luke attempts to cite the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint though the latter likely influences the gospel’s manuscript. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) reveals:
<blockquote>Luke derives most of the wording of this prescription [Luke 2:22-24] from the Septuagint of Leviticus 12:8, which speaks of “two turtledoves or two young pigeons.” The turtledove, of which three varieties are known in Palestine, is a small type of pigeon. The two species of birds are often linked in Old Testament stipulations about animal sacrifices. Here the implication is that Mary offered these animals because she (or Joseph) could not afford the one-year old lamb for the whole burnt offering. (Fitzmyer, <i>The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible)</I>, 426)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/great_texts/index.php?id=100041 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Lyle Jeffrey</a> (b. 1941) presumes:
<blockquote>The citations of the law do not follow the Greek (Septuagint) text, and we may reasonably assume that Luke’s language here reflects the report of his informants, possibly in a condensed form. (Jeffrey, <i>Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 46)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/john-nolland STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Nolland</a> (b. 1947) adds:
<blockquote>No close parallel has been offered for the idiom δουναι θυσίαν [Luke 2:23] (literally, “give a sacrifice”; cf. Psalm 51:17). τὸ εἰρημένον, “what is said” [Luke 2:24], is Lukan (Acts 2:16, 13:40) and not Septuagintal. (Nolland, <i>(Luke 1-9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 118)</blockquote>
Some interpreters have seen Luke as having a single regulation in mind (Luke 2:22-24). Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) pronounces:
<blockquote>The sacrifice [Luke 2:24] is not for the redemption of the firstborn, but for the purification of the mother. (Fitzmyer, <i>The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible)</I>, 426)</blockquote>
I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) concurs:
<blockquote>Luke reverts to the cleansing of the mother [Luke 2:24], which was effected by the sacrifice of a lamb with a young pigeon or turtledove as a burnt offering and a sin offering respectively (Leviticus 12:6); Joseph and Mary, however, being poor, availed themselves of the concession to offer two doves or pigeons (Leviticus 12:8; the wording is closer to Leviticus 5:11 where the similar sacrifice for unwitting sin is described; cf. Leviticus 14:22; Numbers 6:10). (Marshall, <i>The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 117-18)</blockquote>
Others have seen the third gospel as conflating multiple ordinances (Luke 2:22-24). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) encapsulates:
<blockquote>Luke 2:22-24 telescopes at least two traditional Jewish practices prescribed by the law. Luke 2:22a, 24 reflect the practice of the purification of the mother after childbirth, following the directives of Leviticus 12:6, 8...Luke 2:22b, 23, however, echo Exodus 13:2, 12, 13, 15 where it is said the firstborn belongs to God and must be redeemed (cf. Mishna, <i>Bekhoroth</I>, 8). (Talbert, <i>Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel</I>, 37)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/john_t_carroll/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John T. Carroll</a> (b. 1954) upholds:
<blockquote>In this unit [Luke 2:22-24] Luke fuses two discrete ritual observances. After childbirth the mother (not both parents) would participate in a rite of purification that includes the offering of a lamb and either a pigeon or turtledove—or, if the woman’s poverty requires less, two pigeons or turtledoves—after seven days of ritual impurity and the boy’s circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:2-8). The narrator seems to connect this sacrificial offering to the presentation of Jesus as firstborn son (cf. Exodus 13:2, 11-16), rather than to the mother’s purification. In an account that reproduces with precision neither the liturgical acts nor their legal basis, the literary arrangement provides a clue to meaning. The two rituals are fused in a chiastic arrangement that places the presentation of Jesus—as firstborn son, “holy to the Lord” [Luke 2:23]—at the center of the unit and the sacrificial offering of two birds at the end [Luke 2:24]. (Carroll, <i>Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</I>, 75)</blockquote>
Part of the interpretive difficulty stems from the use of the plural pronoun “their” as opposed to the singular “her” (Luke 2:22). John Reumann (1927-2008) chastises:
<blockquote>In Luke 2:22 he speaks of “<i>their</I> purification,” seemingly thinking that both parents were purified, when the custom referred only to the mother [Leviticus 12:2-8]. Also, he seems to think (incorrectly) that the Law required the presentation of the firstborn at the Temple. In Luke 2:24 Luke describes the doves or pigeons as a gift on the occasion of the presentation, when according to Leviticus 12:6 they were the gift prescribed for the purification. See Heikke Räisänen [b. 1941], <i>Die Mutter Jesu im Neuen Testament</I>, 125-27; Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], <i>The Birth of the Messiah</I>, 447-51. (Brown [1928-1998], <a href=http://www.smith.edu/religion/faculty_donfried.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Karl P. Donfried</a> [b. 1940], Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] and Reumann, <i>Mary in the New Testament</I>, 111)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sharon H. Ringe</a> (b. 1946) recognizes:
<blockquote>The only puzzling point in Luke’s version of the purification is the initial reference to “their” purification [Luke 2:22], since only the mother required such a ritual. There really is no way to get around the awkwardness of that pronoun, other than to recognize it in the context of Luke’s description of the pilgrimage as involving the whole family. One might even see the plural pronoun as affirming that upon the completion of this obligation, the whole family would be ready to resume its life after the dramatic intervention of the birth of the baby. (Ringe, <i>Luke (Westminster Bible Companion)</i>, 45)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ctu.edu/academics/barbara-e-reid-op STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barbara E. Reid</a> (b. 1953) discusses:
<blockquote>These verses [Luke 2:22-24] are confusing in the use of “their” and “they” without antecedents. Presumably, “their purification” [Luke 2:22] refers to Mary and Joseph, but in Jewish law purification was specified only for the woman (Leviticus 12:2-8). Some commentators have understood “their” as referring to Mary and Jesus, but there was no requirement of purification for a newborn. Since the main verb <i>anēgagon</I> [Luke 2:22], “they took him up,” refers to Mary and Joseph, it is best to take “their purification” as referring to Mary and Joseph as well. The inaccuracy about who was required to undergo purification is usually explained as Luke’s mistake, due to his being a non-Palestinian Gentile Christian, unfamiliar with the intricacies of Jewish law. When today we are concerned for gender equality, we might smile at Luke’s unwitting inclusivity of Joseph in a ritual intended for women. (Reid, <i>Choosing the Better Part?: Women in the Gospel of Luke</I>, 86-87)</blockquote>
E.J. Tinsley (1919-1992) laments:
<blockquote>It is a pity that the use of the word <i>purification</I> [Luke 2:22] has suggested the notion that sexual processes are necessarily unseemly. Significantly in this passage the majority of manuscripts have ‘their’ <i>purification</I> so as to reduce the direct reference to the mother of Jesus needing purification made in those manuscripts which read ‘her’ <i>purification</I>. (Tinsley, <i>The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament)</i>, 41)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) rationalizes:
<blockquote>The text refers to “their” sacrifice [Luke 2:22], which seems odd at first glance in that a purification offering would normally be Mary’s alone. However, seeing that Joseph undoubtedly helped in Mary’s delivery at the distant town, he was also rendered unclean and needed to make a sacrifice for himself (<i>Mishnah Niddah</I> 5.1, 2.5, 1.3-5). Another possibility is that Luke is alluding in Luke 2:22 to all the sacrifices involved in the three ceremonies and that those offerings, some hers and others theirs, are combined. All these sacrifices indicate how seriously Judaism took approaching God in worship and how prepared a heart and soul one should have as they address God. (Bock, <i>Luke (NIV Application Commentary)</i>)</blockquote>
While the precise regulation the gospel intends to indicate is unclear, it is undeniable that Luke holds the Old Testament tradition in the highest regard. <a href=http://www.jewell.edu/religion STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J. Bradley Chance</a> (b. 1954) reviews:
<blockquote>A survey of the Lukan materials indicates that Luke did not transfer cultic language from the temple to the church, as though he wished to imply that the church was now the proper locus of the cult...Neither does Luke spiritualize the idea of offering (προσψορά, δωρον) or sacrifice (θυσία), nor does he use such language to describe the Christian life. The language of sacrifice is employed literally, and is often employed in the context of the temple cult. When it is found in this context, it is presented in a positive light (Luke 2:24, 5:14, 21:1-4; Acts 21:26, 24:17). Explicitly negative attitudes revolve around the cultic items only in the context of the Stephen speech (Acts 7:41-42), where Stephen is describing the idolatrous incident of the golden calf (Acts 7:41) and the lack of a sacrificial cult during Israel’s period of desert wanderings (Acts 7:42). The latter reference can hardly be understood as Luke’s rejection of all sacrifice and offering, given Acts 21:26 and Acts 24:17 where Paul’s participation in the Jewish cult is viewed as an act of true piety. (Chance, <i>Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts</I>, 36)</blockquote>
There are problematic theological ramifications if Luke alludes to the redeeming of the firstborn (Exodus 13:13-16; Luke 2:22-24). <a href=http://www.wjkbooks.com/Author/Default.aspx?AuthorID=13371 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Justo L. González</a> (b. 1937) observes:
<blockquote>Curiously, Luke tells us that the Redeemer has to be redeemed, has to be bought back [Luke 2:22-24]. This is not because he has sinned, but simply because he is a firstborn, and all the firstborn in Israel belong to God [Exodus 13:13-16]. The theme of the Passover as a type of Jesus...appears repeatedly throughout the New Testament, with several layers of meaning. The paschal lamb that was sacrificed [Exodus 12:1-13] is a type of Jesus. Jesus himself is the new Passover, for in him God shows mercy to us. According to Luke and the other Synoptic Gospels [Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7,8, 11, 13, 15], the last meal of Jesus with his disciples before the crucifixion is a paschal meal. It is there that he instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. Here, at the presentation in the temple, another Passover theme appears: Jesus the firstborn is to be redeemed by the sacrifice of two turtledoves [Luke 2:24], and he will then redeem all humankind by his own sacrifice. (González, <i>Luke (Belief: a Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 42)</blockquote>
Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) counters:
<blockquote>The narrative [Luke 2:23-24] associates the purification of the mother after seven days with the offering prescribed for the firstborn, normally carried out through payment to a local priest...Nothing is said here of such a “redemption” of Jesus; instead he is received into the service of God (in which he will redeem others: Mark 10:45, not used by Luke). Perhaps there is also an echo of I Samuel 1:11, 22-28. There, however, the mother dedicates her child to God, whereas here God sets the child apart for service through the agency of a prophet. Thus a prescribed ritual takes on new meaning as a kind of “presentation” of the newborn child. (Schweizer, <i>The Good News According to Luke</I>, 55)</blockquote>
The theological implications of the offering effect the parents as well as the child. Based upon its presumed necessity, it could be inferred that Mary and Joseph are sinners. As such, the only sinless man (Hebrews 4:15) is raised by sinners.
<p>This issue has been debated for centuries. <a href=http://www.gonzaga.edu/academics/Colleges-and-Schools/College-of-Arts-and-Sciences/Majors-Programs/Religious-Studies/Graduate-Programs/Graduate_Faculty.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Linda S. Schearing</a> (b. 1947) presents:
<blockquote>It wasn’t the Holy Family’s finances...that drew the most attention from readers [Luke 2:22-24], but the fact that Mary offered what was understood as a “sin” offering. Such an action raised a host of questions about Mary’s nature. Was the mother of the Christ a “normal” woman? Did she menstruate? Did she bleed when giving birth to Jesus? In either of these cases, Leviticus 12:1-8 and 15:1-33 would have labeled Mary ceremonially “unclean.” In the early centuries following Jesus’ death, however, Christian communities claimed that Mary was “more than” other women. As this happened, such “normal” aspects of female physicality such as menstruation and parturition became the objects of controversy. For example, while some thought that Mary’s piety exempted her from the “normal” pain of childbirth, others insisted that even Mary’s hymen was left intact after Jesus’ birth! (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and <a href=http://college.lclark.edu/live/profiles/97-robert-kugler STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert A. Kugler</a>, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, <i>The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception</I>, 440)</blockquote>
This topic is of special concern within Catholicism. <a href=http://www.gty.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John F. MacArthur</a> (b. 1939) criticizes:
<blockquote>That Mary offered a sin offering is consistent with the reality that she was a sinner in need of a Savior (cf. Luke 1:47). The Catholic dogma that Mary was immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life finds no support in Scripture. (MacArthur, <i>Luke 1-5 (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary)</I>, 171)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gonzaga.edu/academics/Colleges-and-Schools/College-of-Arts-and-Sciences/Majors-Programs/Religious-Studies/Graduate-Programs/Graduate_Faculty.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Linda S. Schearing</a> (b. 1947) analyzes:
<blockquote>A...serious issue arose concerning the sin offering Mary offered in Luke 2:24. The dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception insisted that Mary was without sin. If this was the case then why would she need to be purified? How could the birth of the Savior render his mother unclean? As Mary’s visit to Jerusalem for her purification became immortalized in the church’s festival of Candlemas, focus on her purity was kept cultically alive each calendar year...Perhaps one of the most well-conceived medieval treatments of Mary’s presentation to Leviticus 12:1-8 is found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]. In his <i>Summa Theologica</I>, he addressed Luke 2:21-24, Leviticus 12:1-8, and Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity...“As Gregory of Nyssa [335-394] says (<i>De Occursu Domini</I>): <i>It seems that this precept of Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual unison, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate.</I> Consequently the words <i>opening the womb</I> imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for special reason it is written <i>“a male,” because He contracted nothing of the woman’s sin:</I> and in a singular way <i>is He called ‘holy’ because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate</I> (Ambrose [337-397], on Luke 2:23).”...In both cases—her perpetual virginity and her sinlessness—Aquinas felt it necessary to defend Mary’s actions in Luke 2:21-24 in light Leviticus 12:1-8’s association with impurity. Nor was such concern solely the purview of theologians like Aquinas. A similar point of view can be found in the liturgy of a mid-eleventh century Bavarian Candlemas ceremony...For historians like <a href=http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/jpierce/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joanne M. Pierce</a> [b. 1955], this rite, with its imperative to let Mary “be a model for us” exemplifies how the Feast of Candlemas connected the themes of Mary and purification while at the same time exhorting women to follow Mary’s example. (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and <a href=http://college.lclark.edu/live/profiles/97-robert-kugler STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert A. Kugler</a>, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, <i>The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception</I>, 440-43)</blockquote>
Given the problematic nature of including these offerings, the passage’s historicity is bolstered (Luke 2:22-24). Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) affirms:
<blockquote>The record of the offerings [Luke 2:21-24] is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed <i>not</I> to bring the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. (Plummer, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 65)</blockquote>
For Luke, these theological issues are likely not at the forefront: The intent is not to discredit Jesus’ parents but rather to present them as pious Jews. Luke depicts them faithfully following three prescribed rituals: circumcision (Luke 2:22), purification (Luke 2:2) and dedication (Luke 2:23-24).
<p><a href=http://www.craddocksermons.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fred B. Craddock</a> (b. 1928) praises:
<blockquote>The story falls into three parts: the framing story (Luke 2:22-24, 39-40), into which are inserted the response of Simeon (Luke 2:25-35) and the response of Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The framing story itself has one governing focus: Jesus grew up in a family that meticulously observed the law of Moses. No fewer than five times in this text Luke tells the reader that they did everything required in the law. Later in life Jesus would be in tension with some interpreters of his tradition, but his position would not be that of an outsider. On the contrary, Jesus’ own nurture in his tradition prepared him to oppose flawed and hollow practices in the name of the law of Moses. (Luke, <i>Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</i>, 38)</blockquote>
David L. Tiede (b. 1940) agrees:
<blockquote>By mentioning <b>the law</b> in each of these three verses [Luke 2:22-24], he also stresses that proper temple observance is obedience to the will of God. The word <b>law</b> here means the text of Scripture, and it may also be understood to refer to God’s theocratic rule. The term is unequivocally positive in this context. (Tiede, <i>Luke (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 74)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael Card</a> (b. 1957) supports:
<blockquote>Within the scope of six verses, the observance of the “law” is mentioned four times. This is a picture of Mary and Joseph’s exacting observance of the law. Of the nine times the word <i>law</I> occurs in Luke’s writing, five of them are contained in this passage [Luke 2:22, 23, 24, 27, 39]. (Card, <i>Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination)</I>, 51)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) determines:
<blockquote>Luke is making it clear that Jesus’ parents are not spiritual renegades, but Jews who are sensitive and faithful to the Mosaic law—a point reinforced in Luke 2:40-52, when they will make their customary annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. All the persons surrounding Jesus at his birth have a heritage of devotion to God. The testimony to Jesus stands on the shoulders of a series of highly respectable figures. (Bock, <i>Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary)</i>, 58)</blockquote>
God places his child into a devout home which values the precepts set forth in the Old Testament. Significantly, Jesus raised in a religious household.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why do Mary and Joseph follow these religious observances when their circumstances are so different from the regulations’ intent (Luke 2:22-24)? What does it say of God that Jesus is inserted into a family that attempts to follow Jewish law? How closely do you live out your religious beliefs? Were you reared in a religious home? Do you think God would entrust your household with Jesus? What does their offering say of Mary and Joseph? What do your offerings speak of you?</font>
<p>In addition to their obedience, the text sheds light on Jesus’ parents’ tax bracket: Their offering puts their financial status on display as the majority of interpreters have seen Mary and Joseph invoking a provision that makes allowances in hardship cases (Leviticus 12:8; Luke 2:22-24).
<p>G. Johannes Botterweck (1917-1981) reads:
<blockquote>In the sacrifice offered for the purification of a woman who has given birth, a year-old lamb is brought to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6). Here...an indigence clause (Leviticus 12:8; cf. Luke 2:24) commutes the year-old lamb to the burnt offering of two turtledoves or young pigeons (cf. Leviticus 1:14, 5:7, 14:22; [Leviticus15:30]). (Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren [1917-2012], <i>Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume VI</i>, 39)</blockquote>
<a href=http://seminary.bethel.edu/academics/san-diego-programs/divinity/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mark L. Strauss</a> (b. 1959) explicates:
<blockquote>The quotation [Luke 2:24] is from Leviticus 12:8, which concerns the sacrifice of purification for the woman, not the redemption of the firstborn. The woman was to offer a lamb and a pigeon or dove (Leviticus 12:6), or two doves or pigeons if she was poor (Leviticus 12:8). We have incidental evidence here that Joseph and Mary belong to the lower economic classes. (<a href=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/clinton_arnold/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clinton E. Arnold</a> [b. 1958], <i>Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 29)</blockquote>
William Barclay (1907-1978) envisions:
<blockquote>The offering of the two pigeons instead of the lamb [Luke 2:24] and the pigeon was technically called <i>the Offering of the Poor</I>. It was the offering of the poor which Mary brought. Again we see that it was into an ordinary home that Jesus was born, a home where there were no luxuries, a home where the cost of everything had to be considered carefully, a home where the members of the family knew all about the difficulties of making a living and the haunting insecurity of life. When life is worrying for us we must remember that Jesus knew what the difficulties of making ends meet can be. (Barclay, <i>The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible)</I>, 30)</blockquote>
Walter Pilgrim (b. 1934) evaluates:
<blockquote>There are...several features in the actual birth story of Jesus which emphasize the lowly social status of his family. The offering they bring for the purification of Mary, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, is that prescribed for the poor (Luke 2:22-24). The rich offered a lamb. This tells us that though Joseph was an artisan [Matthew 13:55] and so belonged to the middle class, his actual economic situation was something less. Perhaps even the lack of room for them in Bethlehem may imply their inability to pay enough [Luke 2:7]. The entire story of the manger birth evokes a sense of God’s activity in the midst of earthly poverty. (Pilgrim, <i>Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts</I>, 79-80)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) substantiates:
<blockquote>From Luke 2:24 it is clear that Joseph and Mary offered the offering of the poor, an offering that identifies them with the very people whom Christ portrays himself as saving (Luke 1:52, 4:18-19, 6:20; Heinrich Greeven [1906-1990] <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</I> 6:69; Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] 1988:62). However, it should not be concluded from this that Joseph lived in abject poverty, since he had a trade as a carpenter (William Hendriksen [1900-1982] 1978:165; Alfred Plummer [1841-1926] 1896:65; Mark 6:3). The lamb seems to have been offered only by the fairly wealthy. It is quite possible that Jesus’ parents bought their offering in the temple courts (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1977:437; Luke 19:45-48). (Bock, <i>Luke 1:1-9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 235)</blockquote>
Origen (184-253) approves:
<blockquote>It seems wonderful that the sacrifice of Mary was not the first offering, that is, “a lamb a year old,” but the second, since “she could not afford” the first [Leviticus 12:6-8]. For as it was written about her, Jesus’ parents came “to offer a sacrifice” for him, “according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.’” [Luke 2:24] But this also shows the truth of what was written, that Jesus Christ “although he was rich, became a poor man” [II Corinthians 8:9]. Therefore, for this reason, he chose both a poor mother, from whom he was born, and a poor homeland, about which it is said, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephratha, who are little to be among the clans of Judah [Micah 5:2],” and the rest. <i>Homilies on Leviticus 8.4.3</i>. (<a href=http://www.ctsfw.edu/page.aspx?pid=317 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Arthur A. Just</a> [b. 1953], <i>Luke (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)</i>, 47-48)</blockquote>
The public indication is that Mary and Joseph cannot afford the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24). Thus, though Jesus’ family is not destitute, they are hardly wealthy in monetary terms.
<p>Luke’s notice of the parents’ offerings complies with the third gospel’s emphasis on the poor. Leon Morris (1914-2006) contextualizes:
<blockquote>Jesus came to preach the gospel to the poor (Luke 4:18), and Luke reports a blessing on the poor (Luke 6:20 by contrast there is a woe for the rich, Luke 6:24), whereas Matthew speaks of ‘the poor in spirit’ (Matthew 5:3). Preaching good news to the poor is characteristic of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 7:22). The shepherds to whom the angels came (Luke 2:8ff) were from a poor class. Indeed the family of Jesus himself seems to have been poor, for the offering made at the birth of the child was that of the poor (Luke 2:24; <i>cf</I>. Leviticus 12:8). In general Luke concerns himself with the interests of the poor (Luke 1:53, 6:30, 14:11-13, 21, 16:19ff.). (Morris, <i>Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 45)</blockquote>
<p>Jesus will maintain this economic status throughout his life. <a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jgreen/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joel B. Green</a> (b. 1956) follows:
<blockquote>Was Jesus himself economically disadvantaged? Sentimental pictures have been painted of his lowly beginnings in a stable, as though he were homeless, but these are based on misreadings of the Lukan narrative. Luke 2:1-7 portrays a small town swelled by the requirements of the Roman-instigated census. As Bethlehem probably had no public inns, Luke envisages a near-eastern peasant home in which family and animals slept in one enclosed space, with the animals located on a lower level. Mary and Joseph, then, would have been the guests of family or friends, but their home would have been so overcrowded that, upon his birth, the baby was placed in a feeding trough...More to the point is the sacrifice offered by Jesus’s parents in Luke 2:24: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” – according to Leviticus 12:8 the prescribed offering for those unable to afford a yearling lamb. Furthermore, in his Galilean ministry Jesus is said to depend on the support of others (Luke 8:1-3), Later, on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus says of himself that he has no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), presumably an assertion about his lack of a home, but surely also a warning concerning the rejection to be expected of those who follow in his footsteps. (Green, <i>The Theology of the Gospel of Luke</I>, 112-13)</blockquote>
Jesus emanates from a blue collar family; he will be raised in a humble home (Luke 1:48). This serves as a reminder that he comes to save all, not merely the privileged of society.
<p><a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-j-ellsworth-kalas/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J. Ellsworth Kalas</a> (b. 1928) and <a href=http://fumcgb.org/fumcgb/ministry+team/+clergy++program+staff/rev+david+kalas.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David J. Kalas</a> (b. 1962) understand:
<blockquote>God...communicated in humanly understandable terms when he chose to have his special Son raised in a home like many others. He did not grow up in a wealthy home. We can tell Mary and Joseph were persons of small means by the humble thank-offering they brought to the Temple — i.e.. “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24). A well-to-do family might have offered a lamb. We can also tell that Jesus grew up in a good, law-abiding home. His parents showed respect for the <i>sacred</I> laws by bringing their son to the Temple on the proscribed eighth day for the required ritual of dedication called circumcision [Luke 2:21]. (Kalas, Kalas, <a href=http://stjohnswalhalla.org/page.aspx?p=staff_and_key_contacts_pastor_honeycutt_bio STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frank G. Honeycutt</a> [b. 1957], <a href=http://carolinastudycenter.com/biography-stephen-m-crotts STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen M. Crotts</a> [b. 1950] and R. Robert Cueni [b. 1942], “God Communicates In Humanly Understandable Terms”, <i>Sermons on the Gospel Readings: Series 1, Cycle C</I>, 47)</blockquote>
<p>Mary and Joseph amount to Jesus’ godparents in that they are selected to raise God’s son. God could have chosen anyone for this task and yet a humble family from lowly Galilee is the family that is given the responsibility. In Luke’s text, their obedience, not economic status, is emphasized as Mary and Joseph’s observance of the law is made explicit, while their economic standing remains implicit (Luke 2:22-24). This speaks volumes of God’s priorities.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Do you think Mary and Joseph wished that they could pay the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24)? How would you characterize your own economic status? Would you want your financial records and giving patterns publicly available at your church? If this policy was still practiced, how would it effect giving? Should church giving be recommended on a sliding scale rather than a flat rate (such as tithing)? Is Jesus’ concern for the poor in any way self serving as he himself would likely qualify? If forced to leave your children to someone, who would it be; would you choose a rich or poor family? Would economic standing be a primary consideration? Does Luke emphasize Jesus’ parents’ spiritual or monetary status? Which do you spend more time enhancing, your spiritual life or your financial portfolio?</font>
<p>“We may see the small Value God has for Riches, by the People he gives them to.” -Alexander Pope (1688-1744), <i>Thoughts on Various Subjects</I>, 1727Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-19774856313514777262014-12-09T15:00:00.000-08:002014-12-10T07:47:43.246-08:00Adam & Eve’s Fig Leaves (Genesis 3:7)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mEVd0Mw9BNY/VIdSEChfHbI/AAAAAAAAI98/z98Ml5OeN9Y/s1600/FigLeaf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178.667" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mEVd0Mw9BNY/VIdSEChfHbI/AAAAAAAAI98/z98Ml5OeN9Y/s320/FigLeaf.jpg" /></a></div><b>What were the <i>first</I> clothes made of? Fig leaves (Genesis 3:7)</b>
<p>Adam and Eve’s eating of forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden is one of the Bible’s most well known stories (Genesis 3:1-21). God had previously allowed the man to eat from any tree in the garden with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, conveniently located at its center (Genesis 2:16-17). God assures the man that eating from this tree will result in death (Genesis 2:17). This one stipulation proves one too many as the first couple fails to resist the prohibited fruit (Genesis 3:6). Having been assured by a serpent that they would not die, they willingly eat the fruit (Genesis 3:4-6).
<p>Prior to this infraction, Adam and his wife (who will later be named Eve, Genesis 3:20) enjoy unashamed bliss in the garden (Genesis 2:25). After eating the fruit their “eyes...were opened” and they realize that they are naked to which they respond by crafting makeshift clothing from fig leaves (Genesis 3:7).
<blockquote>Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Genesis 3:7 NASB)</blockquote>
With God’s inevitable visit awaiting, the couple can choose to confess, run or hide. The man and the woman opt to hide. <a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/gordon-wenham STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gordon J. Wenham</a> (b. 1943) asks:
<blockquote>Though somewhat ineffective, these actions suggest urgency and desperation [Genesis 3:7]; the innocent serenity of Genesis 2:25 is shattered. But who are the couple trying to hide from? From each other or from God? Certainly their behavior before meeting God shows (<i>pace</I> Claus Westermann [1909-2000], 1:253) that they have a sense of guilt before he addressed them (so <a href=http://www.freewebs.com/drewermann-eugen/index.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugen Drewermann</a> [b. 1940], 79). (Wenham, <i>Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 276)</blockquote>
Genesis’ note regarding the repercussions of eating the fruit (Genesis 3:7) is paced identically as the previous verse which details the decision to eat of the fruit (Genesis 3:6). <a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/kennethamathews STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth A. Mathews</a> (b. 1950) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>The results are told in the same rapid-fire fashion as the transgression, paralleling the actions of the woman in Genesis 3:6: (1) eyes open, (2) realize their nakedness, (3) sew fig leaves, and (4) make coverings. What they “saw” is that they are “naked,” what is “pleasing to the eye” causes displeasure with their own nakedness and the need to cover it with “fig leaves,” and the “wisdom” gained only enables the making of coverings.” The link between act and consequence is found in the wordplay between <i>ta’ăwâ</I> (“pleasing”) in Genesis 3:6 and similar <i>tē’ēnâ</I> (“fig”). The plural “they” shows that the couple simultaneously experiences the results of eating. The verb “realized,” when literally rendered “knew” (<i>yd‘</I>), echoes the “tree of knowledge” from which they had partaken; the word “naked” is reminiscent again of the “crafty” serpent who tricked the woman into exchanging her innocence for the embarrassing knowledge that they are naked (Genesis 3:1; Genesis 2:25). (Mathews, <i>Genesis 1-11:26 (New American Commentary)</I>, 239)</blockquote>
The verse leaves much to the imagination forcing the reader to engage the text (Genesis 3:7). <a href=http://chn.loyno.edu/religious-studies/bios/robert-k-gnuse-phd STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert Gnuse</a> (b. 1947) contemplates:
<blockquote>Now that they know their own nakedness is a condition that they should avoid, they undertake actions to cover themselves. They sew garments of fig leaves together to make loincloths [Genesis 3:7]. One can only wonder what they sew these fig leaves together with; the text tells us nothing. So the man and the woman hide in the underbrush, wearing the latest in fig-leaf fashion. One can only wonder what they thought that they were going to do next. (Gnuse, <i>Misunderstood Stories: Theological Commentary on Genesis 1-11</i>, 113)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.augsburg.edu/faculty/stratton/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Beverly J. Stratton</a> (b. 1959) challenges:
<blockquote>The narrator does not tell us their feelings. Instead , the story quickly reports their next act: ‘they sewed fig leaves, and they made for themselves coverings’ [Genesis 3:7]. Readers must get involved in the story to try to understand this action. Did the couple gain new knowledge that suggested they should cover themselves? Did new knowledge reveal that nakedness was ‘bad’ and that clothing was ‘good’? Do the man and woman cover themselves because they are somehow newly aware of sexual differences? Or are they differently aware of their disobedience, and is this awareness related to their clothing of themselves? Perhaps the couple is embarrassed or ashamed to be in one another’s presence. The narrator is again silent (perhaps annoyingly so to the reader) about the couple’s thoughts and feelings after their action and whatever unspecified immediate consequences it may have had for them. But perhaps, given the couple’s unashamed nakedness of Genesis 2:25, their actions here speak louder than words. (Stratton, <i>Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric and Ideology in Genesis 2-3</I>, 49-50)</blockquote>
With newly opened eyes, the couple realizes that they are naked (Genesis 3:7). <a href=https://www.knoxseminary.edu/dr-bruce-k-waltke/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce K. Waltke</a> (b. 1930) interprets:
<blockquote>In the Bible, <i>‘ārûm</I> [“naked”] usually describes someone stripped of protective clothing and “naked” in the sense of being defenseless, weak, or humiliated (Deuteronomy 28:48; Job 1:21; Isaiah 58:7). With an awareness of guilt and a loss of innocense, the couple now feels shame in their naked state. Their spiritual death is revealed by their alienation from one another, symbolized by sewing fig leaves together for barriers, and by their separation from God, symbolized by hiding among the trees [Genesis 3:7]. (Waltke with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/cathi.fredricks STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cathi J. Fredricks</a> [b. 1970], <i>Genesis: A Commentary</I>, 92)</blockquote>
<a href=http://neareast.jhu.edu/directory/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ellen A. Robbins</a> (b. 1945) praises:
<blockquote>The manner in which the story is constructed limited the Storyteller to just one immediate effect of eating from the Tree of Knowing as the primary trait that differentiates humans from other animal species, and it’s a tribute to his powers of observation and appreciation of irony that he chose the fact that we alone cannot tolerate being seen naked [Genesis 3:7]. He carefully prepared us for this insight by earlier describing the pair as “naked but not ashamed” [Genesis 2:25] which immediately puts us in mind of all the other animals in the Garden. (Robbins, <i>The Storyteller and the Garden of Eden</I>, 135)</blockquote>
The Hebrew terms used for “naked” vary slightly in Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:7. John H. Sailhamer (b. 1946) accentuates:
<blockquote>There is a difference in meaning between ערום (“naked”) in Genesis 2:25 and ערום (“naked”) in Genesis 3:7. Although both terms are infrequent in the Pentateuch, the latter is distinguished by its used [sic] in Deuteronomy 28:48, where it depicts the state of Israel’s exiles who have been punished for their failure to trust and obey God’s word: “Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies that the LORD sends against you.” In distinguishing the first state of human nakedness from the second, the author has introduced a subtle yet perceptible clue to the story’s meaning. The effect of the Fall was not simply that the man and the woman came to know that they were ערום (“naked”). Specifically, they came to know that they were ערום (“naked”) in the sense of being “under God’s judgment,” as in Deuteronomy 28:48 (cf. Ezekiel 16:39, 23:29). (Sailhmaer, <i>The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary</I>, 103)</blockquote>
<a href=http://store.augsburgfortress.org/store/contributor/2753/Marshall-D-Johnson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">M.D. Johnson</a> (1935-2011) footnotes:
<blockquote>Louis Ginzberg [1873-1953] (<i>Legends of the Jews</I>, volume 5, pp. 121ff and n. 120) notes that the haggadic interpretation of “naked” in Genesis 3:7, 10 is that the first pair became aware that they were bare of good deeds; cf. Shabbat 14a; Megillah 32a; Genesis Rabbah 19:6; Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 14. Other Jewish and Christian writers assert that Adam and Eve had garments of light before the Fall. (<a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1917&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James H. Charlesworth</a> [b. 1940], <i>The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 2: Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic works</i>, 281)</blockquote>
In spite of the revelation of their nakedness, on the surface there is little change after partaking of the fruit (Genesis 3:7). Thomas Whitelaw (1840-1917) assures:
<blockquote>This sense of shame which caused them to seek a covering for their nudity was not due to any physical corruption of the body (Michael Baumgarten [1812-1889]), but to the consciousness of guilt with which their souls were laden, and which impelled them to flee from the presence of their offended Sovereign. (H.D.M. Spence [1836-1917] and Joseph S. Exell [1819-1887], <i>Genesis (Pulpit Commentary)</I>, 59)</blockquote>
H.H.B. Ayles (1861-1940) concurs:
<blockquote>There is no need to think of any physical change. Their bodies were the same, but now they recognized the facts. The Midrash excellently comments: “they knew they were like the beasts.” (Ayles, <i>A Critical Commentary on Genesis II.4-III.25</I>, 62)</blockquote>
Tangibly speaking, nothing changes after eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:7). After an edict of death (Genesis 2:17), these results read anticlimactically. <a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/gordon-wenham STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gordon J. Wenham</a> (b. 1943) admits:
<blockquote>“Then the eyes of both of them were opened” [Genesis 3:7] combines phrases from Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:5. The snake’s prediction is literally fulfilled but their vision is somewhat of a letdown: “They realized they were nude, and they sewed fig leaves together” [Genesis 3:7]. (Wenham, <i>Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 276)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.peacelobby.org/JeromeMSegalPresident.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jerome M. Segal</a> (b. 1943) assesses:
<blockquote>In a sense, this gaining of knowledge of good and evil seems strikingly devoid of content. After all, what do they know that they didn’t know before? It can’t be said that they learned that they didn’t have any fig leaves covering them. They knew that already. Rather, they came to perceive themselves as naked [Genesis 3:7]. They saw what they had always seen, but now they experienced it differently. They experienced themselves through moral categories; to perceive oneself as naked requires a notion of right and wrong. Until he ate from the tree Adam did not possess the concept “naked”; thus, when he explains to God why he was hiding, saying, “I was afraid because I was naked,” God responds by focusing on his language and what it reveals.”Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (Genesis 3:10-11 NIV). (Segal, <i>Joseph’s Bones: Understanding the Struggle Between God and Mankind in the Bible</I>, 41)</blockquote>
Robert Farrar Capon (1925-2013) critiques:
<blockquote>In Genesis 3:7, the damage done in the human mind spills over into the real world...Since the tree was precisely about the <i>knowledge</I> of good and evil [Genesis 2:9, 17], let’s begin with Adam’s and Eve’s stunningly stupid discovery of the <i>nakedness</I> they suddenly thought they knew for the first time...It’s all baloney. From the moment they were made, they’d never been anything <i>but</I> naked. Adam’s vision of Eve as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” [Genesis 2:23] was not a glimpse through a nightgown or bathrobe. The naked man simply recognized, in the naked woman, the same being as himself — with some delightful if puzzling differences. And the naked Eve (assuming she looked at herself first) must have seen the naked Adam, if not with fear and trembling, then at least with admiration for God’s sense of humor...The knowledge of their nakedness could not possibly have been news — unless it was a dangerously perverse knowledge of something that <i>wasn’t there</I>. And that’s exactly what it was: the gratuitous manufacture of a shame, of a guilt they’d never known before. The sin in the Fall, therefore, was internal, not external. It sprang not from the <i>fruit</I> of the tree but from the <i>eating</I> of the fruit [Genesis 3:6] — from the <i>digesting</I> of a lie about reality. And from there on, it was only a matter of time until it spilled over into the as yet innocent world...Hebrew is not a language of abstractions. It’s a tissue of concrete nouns, verbs, and adjectives that can deal with high subjects in an earthy way (<i>reigning you will reign, dying you will die</I> [Genesis 2:17]). And even though <i>eating you will eat</I> does not appear in the text, it meaning is plain: “You will metabolize this lie until it becomes the truth of your miserable lives.” It would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. The sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden was a bad joke on the human intellect — a silly extravagance, a pointless peripatation around the simple truth of their being. And it took them clean (or murkily) out of their minds. They didn’t learn anything here. They focused n the unlearnable, and they paid the price. They became fools — and they took us into their folly with them. (Capon, <i>Genesis: The Movie</I>, 292-93)</blockquote>
Clyde T. Francisco (1916-1981) imparts:
<blockquote>What had they learned? That they were naked [Genesis 3:7]. How profound! With all the astounding knowledge that man has acquired in this century, where has it left him in his own soul? Overwhelmed with a sense of guilt about himself and his society. Always it is thus, the writer is saying, when the pursuit of knowledge is not directed by faith. (<a href=http://www.sbhla.org/downloads/795-221.pdf STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clifton J. Allen</a> [1901-1986], <i>General Articles, Genesis–Exodus (Broadman Bible Commentary)</i>, 129-30)</blockquote>
While physically, the transformation is negligible, there is an immediate and marked change in the state of the couple before and after eating the fruit (Genesis 3:7).
<p><a href=http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=173 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David J. Atkinson</a> (b. 1943) contrasts:
<blockquote>In Genesis 2:25 we read that the man and his wife were naked and unashamed. By Genesis 3:7 there is shame – that sense of unease with yourself at the heart of your being. Not being able to be comfortable with yourself as you are, and therefore not being comfortable in the presence of another: that is shame. (Atkinson, <i>The Message of Genesis 1–11 (Bible Speaks Today)</I>, 87)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> (b. 1952) appraises:
<blockquote>The effects of the Fall go well beyond physical death. The first place the consequences of the Fall can be seen is in relationship, which is so important to human beings. No longer can Adam and Eve stand naked before one another and feel no shame [Genesis 2:25]. They cover themselves with fig leaves [Genesis 3:7]. Their shame extends beyond a feeling of physical inadequacy and includes a psychological and spiritual estrangement. They no longer experience the same measure of intimate connectedness that they felt before the sin. (Longman, <i>How to Read Genesis</i>, 112)</blockquote>
The man and woman’s nakedness extends far beyond the physical realm (Genesis 3:7). <a href=http://www.drmigueldelatorre.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Miguel A. De La Torre</a> (b. 1958) gauges:
<blockquote>The first discovery they made once their eyes were opened was their vulnerability, for they were more than just physically naked, they were also emotionally and psychologically naked [Genesis 3:7]. They are left to make amends by creating clothing to cover up their nakedness. But human attempts to cover up their vulnerabilities fall short of the mark. Fig-leaf clothes do not last for long. (De La Torre, <i>Genesis (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 77)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.pts.edu/Faculty_Emeriti STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Donald E. Gowan</a> (b. 1929) concurs:
<blockquote>Their eyes were opened [Genesis 3:7], and the result was shame or, perhaps more accurately, self-consciousness. Having made their declaration of independence from God, they are now aware of themselves in a new way, as autonomous beings over against other selves. They know that they can exercise an independent will that differs from the will of others, and they already sense (as we know so well from experience) that these differing wills are potentially hostile. The first act of their new state of knowledge is to attempt to create a defense. They are aware of themselves as naked, that is, as two different kinds of human beings and thus potentially enemies. Their pitiful garments of leaves, scratchy and sketchy, are their attempt to make clothing their first line of defense. (Gowan, <i>Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel (International Theological Commentary)</i>, 55)</blockquote>
Augustine (354-430) envisages:
<blockquote>Then they saw that they were naked by perverted eyes [Genesis 3:7]. Their original simplicity, signified by the term <i>nakedness</I>, now seemed to be something to be ashamed of. And so that they might no longer be simple, they made aprons for themselves from the leaves of the fig tree, as if to cover their private parts, that is, to cover their simplicity, of which that cunning pride was ashamed. The leaves of the fig tree signify a certain itching, if this is correctly said in the case of incorporeal things, which the mind suffers in wondrous ways from the desire and pleasure of lying. As a result those who love to joke are even called “salty” in Latin. For in jokes pretense plays a primary role. <i>Two Books on Genesis against the Manichaeans 2.15.23</I>. (<a href=https://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/staff/profile/?id=670 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andrew Louth</a> [b. 1944], <i>Genesis 1-11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)</I>, 81)</blockquote>
The revelation completely changes the dynamics of their interactions. <a href=http://dm4truth.wix.com/derrickmccarson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Derrick McCarson</a> (b. 1984) realizes:
<blockquote>For Adam and Eve, the age of innocense was over and the relational intimacy and naiveté that they enjoyed in the Garden was replaced with evil thoughts and guilt. What a contrast from the marital bliss they previously enjoyed (Genesis 2:25). (McCarson, <i>Origins: An In-Depth Study of Genesis 1–11</I>, 143)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.htcchicago.org/david-helm/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David R. Helm</a> (b. 1961) and <a href=http://christpluscity.org/author/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jon M. Dennis</a> (b. 1966) diagnose:
<blockquote>Their shame is a signal that their relationship to each other has changed. Now they are painfully self-conscious. As an infant in his mother’s womb needs no clothes, so Adam and Eve, wrapped in the warmth of God’s presence, had no need for a covering. Now–as if thrust from the womb without warning–the impulse is to cover themselves and hide. What a contrast to how they felt earlier: “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Genesis 2:25). (Helm and Dennis, <i>The Genesis Factor: Probing Life’s Big Questions</I>, 74-75)</blockquote>
Martin Sicker (b. 1931) expounds:
<blockquote>They had become aware of each other in a way vastly different than before. They had always been naked, but now they <i>knew they were naked!</I> [Genesis 3:7] Whereas previously they had been able to confront each other in their nakedness without embarrassment, now they began to feel uncomfortable in each other’s presence. A sense of vulnerability came over them. They felt exposed, without protection. They looked at the animals around them and then at themselves, and their discomfort increased. They now experienced a feeling unknown to them before. Fully conscious of their nakedness, they exhibit any inclination to shield their exposure. Why, and in what way, were they different in this regard? Their eyes were opened and they saw things now that they had never noticed before. Was this what it was like to be <i>as Elohim</I>, as the serpent had taunted [Genesis 3:5]? (Sicker, <i>Reading Genesis Politically: An Introduction to Mosaic Political Philosophy</I>, 30)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.preachingtheword.com/kenthughes.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Kent Hughes</a> (b. 1942) laments:
<blockquote><i>Paradise lost!</I>...The carefree nakedness [Genesis 2:25] that went with their perfectly transparent character and their unfettered harmony with God and each other dissolved. (Hughes, <i>Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word)</I>, 76)</blockquote>
Perhaps most tellingly, the choice to eat of the fruit is endemic of a change in priorities. Johnson T.K. Lim (b. 1952) understands:
<blockquote>Their eyes are opened to guilt and shame. Self-consciousness replaces God-consciousness. They sew fig leaves to hide themselves from each other [Genesis 3:7]. They didn’t like what they had seen of themselves and of each other. In the end, doubt and denial lead to disharmony and death. In the end, they were driven from the garden of Eden [Genesis 3:23-24]. (Lim, <i>Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis 1-11</I>, 209)</blockquote>
After eating the fruit, nothing changes. Yet everything changes.
<p>Significantly, God does not immediately intervene. John L. Hemphill III (b. 1971) recognizes:
<blockquote>To sow fig leaves together takes time yet God doesn’t approach Adam and Eve right away [Genesis 3:7]. God let’s the shame of their sin sit around and he doesn’t expose it right away. The mercy of God is also seen by the simple fact that God doesn’t destroy mankind right away, but spares man. Even in man’s darkest hour God is merciful. (Hemphill, <i>Genesis: Human History Through the Eyes of God</I>, 38-39)</blockquote>
God’s absence confirms that divine agency does not directly cause the change in the humans; it is rather a consequence of their actions. The proof is in the pudding: The couple comprehends their failure without being told (Genesis 3:7).
<p><a href=http://www.aei.org/author/leon-r-kass/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leon R. Kass</a> (b. 1939) observes:
<blockquote>The immediate consequence of the transgression doesn’t require God’s intervention at all. “The eyes of them both were opened, and they saw that they were naked, and they made themselves coverings of fig leaves.” [Genesis 3:7] God hasn’t intruded upon that. There’s some kind of sadness and shame in that first discovery. They somehow know how far they are from Godliness. (<a href=http://billmoyers.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bill Moyers</a> [b. 1934], <i>Genesis: A Living Conversation</I>, 53)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.jtc.edu.au/profile/antony-campbell STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Anthony F. Campbell</a> (b. 1934) determines:
<blockquote>What is portrayed in the Garden story is a matter of natural consequence, independent of God. God may have warned against it [Genesis 2:16-17]; the warning is ignored. The act is performed (the fruit eaten) [Genesis 3:6]; the consequence follows (their eyes are opened) [Genesis 3:7]. God is not involved at all, unless the story is unfolded further and it is time for the evening walk in the Garden [Genesis 3:8]. Did Israel envisage a human nature that came from the creative hand of God much as we experience it now? Apparently so, in this text at least. In Genesis 2:25, the couple were innocent (“not ashamed”); in Genesis 3:7, that innocense was lost (they needed fig leaves). God is portrayed as having warned them (the prohibition).The consequences of the act flow from the act itself, not from God. (Campbell, <i>Making Sense of the Bible: Difficult Texts and Modern Faith</I>, 49)</blockquote>
Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) construes:
<blockquote>When the couple eat without limit, no one condemns them immediately—neither God nor parent, state or church, friend or foe. But they know in themselves that something is wrong. In a sense, it is not God who expels them but they who expel God (<a href=http://www.oppeace.org/current-sisters STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Diana Culbertson</a>, in conversation, <a href=http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cleveland</a>, May 22, 1997). They have damaged themselves, and their making of leafy loincloths seems to be an initial effort to protect themselves. (Brodie, <i>Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary</I>, 151)</blockquote>
The change in the man and the woman is not a punishment from God but rather the consequence of not following divine guidance (Genesis 2:16-17). This has important ramifications when generalizing into a hamartiology or doctrine of sin.
<p>As the couple does not experience immediate death (Genesis 2:16-17), some have seen the serpent as being more accurate than God (Genesis 3:4). <a href=http://neareast.jhu.edu/directory/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ellen A. Robbins</a> (b. 1945) concedes:
<blockquote>God had warned the man that eating from the Tree of Knowing Good and Bad would result in death (Genesis 2:16-17). On the other hand, the snake denied that they would die, but claimed rather that God knew that having obtained this faculty of knowing their eyes would be opened and they would become like gods (Genesis 3:4-5). Strictly in terms of the narrative, the snake proved to be correct, they did not die and “their eyes were opened” [Genesis 3:7]. (Robbins, <i>The Storyteller and the Garden of Eden</I>, 75)</blockquote>
Despite incorporating truth, the serpent has unequivocally misled the humans (Genesis 3:4-5). Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) discern:
<blockquote>Ironically, the serpent was right that seeing is knowing, but it was a serpentine knowledge that brought about alienation instead of deeper trust. On one level, they had been rudely outsmarted by a cunning reptile—a shocking humiliation [Genesis 3:4-6]! On another level, the humans experienced a cultural-historical development and covered their sexual nakedness with aprons of fig leaves [Genesis 3:7]. (Kessler and Deurloo, <i>A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings</I>, 53)</blockquote>
The serpent is undoubtedly the story’s villain (Genesis 3:1-21). <a href=http://radboud.academia.edu/ellenvanwolde STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ellen Van Wolde</a> (b. 1954) studies:
<blockquote>The serpent does not represent chaos, as is the view of Karen Randolph Joines [b. 1938] and <a href=http://www.historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/People/Faculty/LandyFrancis.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Francis Landy</a> [b. 1947], for chaos is discontinuity. The serpent represents the opposite of chaos: complete continuity. As there are no differences of distinctions, everything has become equal. The serpent’s deception is the totalitarian principle, the denial of differences and limits. The human being becomes aware of this deception as early as Genesis 3:7b, that is to say before God’s acting. The human being himself arrives at the insight that the acquired knowledge does not result in a continuity of life, but also in the experience of fragmentation to discontinuity in existence. The fact that they cover themselves with fig leaves testifies to the human beings’ confusion resulting from the knowledge, although the serpent had presented this knowledge merely as something positive. In this way the serpent’s representation of continuity is already exposed as false by the human beings’ reaction. (Van Wolde, <i>Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11</I>, 10)</blockquote>
Upon having their eyes opened and realizing their nakedness, the couple’s instinct is to hide (Genesis 3:7). Leon J. Wood (1918-1977) perceives:
<blockquote>The first action of Adam and Eve, having thus sinned, was to try and hide from God. They made coverings for their bodies from fig leaves and then hid themselves [Genesis 3:7]. Man in his sin does not want to be found out by God, but God always knows (Proverbs 15:3). (Wood, <i>A Shorter Commentary on Genesis</I>, 34)</blockquote>
Unlike the biblical text, the Book of Jubilees, an ancient Jewish interpretation of Genesis, asserts that the woman is the first to cover up. <a href=http://www.rug.nl/staff/j.t.a.g.m.van.ruiten/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten</a> (b. 1956) educates:
<blockquote>The text of Jubilees 3:21a has an addition. It states that before the woman gave the fruit to her husband, she first covered her shame with fig leaves. With this addition, the author stresses the innocense of Adam with regard to the nakedness of his wife. Then Adam ate the fruit (Jubilees 3:21c), his eyes were opened (Jubilees 3:21d) and he discovered his nakedness (Jubilees 3:21e). After the making of the apron (Jubilees 3:22a-c), Jubilees adds to the text of Genesis that he ‘covered his shame’ (Jubilees 3:22d), as if to say that the apron could have been used for something else. It is in line with the tendency, also elsewhere in Jubilees, to fill in gaps in the text of Genesis. The text of Jubilees 3:21b is a quotation of Jubilees 3:6b. It omits the word גם (‘also’) and עמה (‘who was with her’), and has Adam instead of ‘her husband’. It is striking that Jubilees has all verbs and suffixes in Jubilees 3:21d-22d in the singular. The reason for the use of the singular in Jubilees could be that the author wants to stress that Adam’s wife has covered her shame. It is, therefore, not necessary or even inconsistent to apply the verbs of Jubilees 3:21d-22d to Adam’s wife. If she had already covered her shame, there would be no need to state that her eyes were opened, and that she would sew fig leaves. The omission of עמה (‘who was with her’) of Genesis 3:6g shows that the author is trying to avoid any suggestion that Adam could have seen the nakedness of his wife. In Jubilees 3:21e the verb...(‘he saw’) is used, whereas Genesis 3:7b reads וידעו (‘they knew’). This variation should, perhaps, be seen in relation to the addition of the verb ‘to know’ in Jubilees 3:16c. He did not <i>know</I> that he was naked before the eating of the fruit, his eyes were open and he <i>saw</I> that he was naked (cf. Jubilees 3:21e). Perhaps the word ‘to know’ was inadequate for the author of Jubilees after the opening of the eyes. One of the consequences of this interpretation of the rewriting of Jubilees is that the eyes of the woman were not opened <i>after</I> she gave the fruit to her husband as in Genesis, but had already been opened <i>before</I>. (Ruiten, <i>Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1-11 in the Book of Jubilees</I>, 95-96)</blockquote>
The man and the woman construct their garments from fig leaves (Genesis 3:7). The biblical description of the garments is sparse. Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) speculates:
<blockquote>The fact that the narrator reports only the people covering themselves and nothing else demonstrates his delicate sensibilities. The old material may have been much cruder. This narrator is quite a different man than those who tell of the wiliness of Lots [sic] daughters [Genesis 19:30-38], of Tamar [Genesis 38:1-30], or even of Rachel [Genesis 31:34-35]! (Gunkel [translated by <a href=http://www.btsr.edu/about/faculty-staff/mark-edward-biddle/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mark E. Biddle</a> [b. 1957)], <i>Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies)</i>, 18)</blockquote>
The Hebrew phrasing has intrigued some interpreters (Genesis 3:7). <a href=http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/jeffbenner/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jeff A. Benner</a> translates woodenly:
<blockquote>And the eyes of the two of them were opened up and they knew that they were naked and they sewed together leaves of the fig and they did for them loin coverings [Genesis 3:7]. (Benner, <i>A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis: The Hebrew Text Literally Translated Word for Word</i>, 26)</blockquote>
<a href=http://barrybandstra.com/me/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barry Bandstra</a> (b. 1951) directs:
<blockquote>Note the singular: <i>leaf of fig</I>, <i>fig leaf</I> [Genesis 3:7], whereas English might use the plural: <i>fig leaves</I>. (Bandstra, <i>Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text</I>, 183)</blockquote>
Genesis 3:7 marks the first time that the fig appears in the Bible. Claus-Hunno Hunzinger (b. 1929) notes:
<blockquote>The fig tree is an ancient and important tree in Palestine and claims special dignity in Judges 9:7ff. To sit under one’s vine and fig tree is to enjoy peace. Figurative use occurs in, e.g., Isaiah 28:4; Jeremiah 8:13; Hosea 9:10; Micah 7:1; Proverbs 27:18. The fig tree is the only tree mentioned in Eden (Genesis 3:7). (Gerhard Kittel [1888-1948] and Gerhard Friedrich [1908-1986], <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume</I>, 1100)</blockquote>
Henry Alford (1810-1871) specifies:
<blockquote>It seems better, with Marcus Kalisch [1828-1885] and Wilhelm Gesenius [1786-1842], to take this as the ordinary fig, whose leaves would require uniting for this purpose, than, with August Wilhelm Knobel [1807-1863], and others, as the banana or musa, one of whose leaves would be too large for the purpose. The ordinary fig is indigenous over the whole East. (Alford, <i>The Book of Genesis and Part of the Book of Exodus: A Revised Version with Marginal References and an Explanatory Commentary</I>, 16)</blockquote>
Thomas Whitelaw (1840-1917) echoes:
<blockquote><b>Fig leaves</b> [are]...not the pisang tree (<i>Musa Paradisiaca</I>), whose leaves attain the length of twelve feet and the breadth of two (August Wilhelm Knobel [1807-1863], Peter von Bohlen [1796-1840]); but the common fig tree (<i>Ficus Carica</I>), which is aboriginal in Western Asia, especially in Persia, Syria, and Asia Minor (Marcus Kalisch [1828-1885], Carl Fredreich Keil [1807-1888], Donald MacDonald [1783-1867]). (H.D.M. Spence [1836-1917] and Joseph S. Exell [1819-1887], <i>Genesis (Pulpit Commentary)</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) describes:
<blockquote>The fig tree has unusually large and strong leaves. Incidentally, it is indigenous to the land of Israel, where it was cultivated very early, but it was known in Babylon; hence, this detail reflects a West Semitic, not a Mesopotamian, cultural background. (Sarna, <i>Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary)</i>, 26)</blockquote>
There is intrigue regarding the rationale behind the couple’s choice of these particular leaves (Genesis 3:7). Helmer Ringgren (1917-2012) admits:
<blockquote>After the fall, Adam and Eve try to make their first clothing out of fig leaves (Genesis 3:7). Whether the lobate form of these leaves made them particularly unsuitable for this purpose or their size made them particularly suitable (as many think) may be left an open question. (G. Johannes Botterweck [1917-1981], Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry [b. 1944], <i>Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 15</I>, 546)</blockquote>
Many have seen practicality guiding the decision. <a href=https://www.knoxseminary.edu/dr-bruce-k-waltke/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce K. Waltke</a> (b. 1930) posits:
<blockquote><b>Fig leaves</b> [Genesis 3:7]...are strong and broad enough for clothing. (Waltke with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/cathi.fredricks STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cathi J. Fredricks</a> [b. 1970], <i>Genesis: A Commentary</I>, 92)</blockquote>
Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) suggests:
<blockquote>Why the man and the woman chose <i>fig</I> leaves is not clear [Genesis 3:7]. The fig tree produces the largest leaves of any tree that grows in Palestine, and if such large-leafed trees were in the garden, then the couple would choose those that provide most coverage. (Hamilton, <i>The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series)</i>, 191)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/gordon-wenham STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gordon J. Wenham</a> (b. 1943) suspects:
<blockquote>“Fig leaves” [Genesis 3:7] were probably used because they are the biggest leaves available in Canaan, though their heavy indentations must have made them less than ideal for a covering! (Wenham, <i>Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 276)</blockquote>
Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) quips:
<blockquote> At least this time their implied choice of tree is good; fig leaves are large. (Brodie, <i>Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary</I>, 151)</blockquote>
Others have seen the selection of fig leaves as a matter of opportunity (Genesis 3:7). Andrew Willet (1562-1621) presumes:
<blockquote><i>They sewed fig leaves</I> [Genesis 3:7]...not because its fruit, which they had tasted, was forbidden, for they would so much more have abhorred the leaves thereof; nor to betoken the desire of the flesh now procured by sin, which they say is provoked by the rubbing of the fig leaves, nor yet as the testimony of repentance, inasmuch as fig leaves prick and sting the flesh; nor need we run to allegories, that this covering with leaves or with fruit betokens the vain excuse and defense of sin. Rather, they made aprons of fig leaves, which were of suitable breadth and ready at hand, for no other reason than to hide their nakedness, of which they were now ashamed. <i>Commentary on Genesis 3:7</I>. (<a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jthompson/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John L. Thompson</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis 1-11 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture)</i>, 140)</blockquote>
As they hide amongst the trees, the fig leaves perhaps represent the first camouflage: Adam and his wife make like a tree and wear leaves (Genesis 3:7).
<p>It has been suggested that the couple takes leaves from the very tree from which they have eaten. Rashi (1040-1105) remarks:
<blockquote>This was the tree of which they had eaten; by the very thing through which their ruin had been caused was some improvement effected in their condition (<i>Sanhedrin</I> 70b). The other trees however prevented them from taking of their leaves. And why is not the name of the tree clearly mentioned? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, never wishes to grieve anything He has created: hence its name is not mentioned in order that it might not be put to shame by people saying, “This is the tree through which the world suffered” (<i>Midrash R. Tanchuma</I>. (<a href=http://www.spst.edu/Kris-Kvam STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kristen E. Kvam</a> [b. 1954], <a href=http://www.gonzaga.edu/ACADEMICS/colleges+and+schools/College-of-Arts-and-Sciences/Majors-Programs/Religious-Studies/Undergraduate-Programs/faculty.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Linda S. Schearing</a> [b. 1947], <a href=http://www.depauw.edu/academics/departments-programs/womens-studies/valarie-ziegler/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Valarie H. Ziegler</a> [b. 1954], “Medieval Readings: Muslim, Jewish, and Christian (600-1500 CE)”, <i>Eve & Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender</i>, 211)</blockquote>
One rabbinic writing anthropmorphizes the Garden’s trees to tell how the fig tree relinquished its leaves. Pisikta de-Rav Kahana 20 reads:
<blockquote>After Adam had eaten from that tree, the Lord banished him from the garden of Eden. Adam went around to all the trees [asking them for leaves], but they would not receive him. What did the trees say? “Thief! You tried to deceive the Creator! You tried to deceive the Lord!” This is what is written: “Do not let arrogant feet crush me” (Psalm 36:1)—[the trees said,] “Do not bring against me that foot that transgressed in pride!” Or wicked hands expel me (Psalm 36:11)—[the trees said,] “Do not shake me with that hand! And don’t take my leaves!” But as you would expect, that tree that gave him fruit also gave him its leaves, which is what is written, And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths (Genesis 3:7). So what was the name of that tree [from which Adam ate]? The fig-tree. (<a href=https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jwst/people/david-m-stern STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Stern</a> [b. 1949] and Mark J. Mirsky [b. 1939], <i>Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature</I>, 45)</blockquote>
Given that the woman professes that the prohibition against the tree encompasses not touching it (Genesis 3:3), it seems unlikely that leaves from the untouchable tree would be used to conceal the act of eating from it.
<p>From the fig leaves, the couple constructs “aprons” (ASV, KJV, RSV), “loin coverings” (NASB) or “loincloths” (ESV, HCSB, NRSV) (Genesis 3:7). Some translations leave the term nondescript: “coverings” (NIV, NKJV), “makeshift clothes” (MSG), “something” (CEV). The NLT omits the term entirely.
<p><a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/towner_dr_and_mrs_w_sibley_sib_jane/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">W. Sibley Towner</a> (b. 1933) informs:
<blockquote>The Geneva Bible of 1560 called them “breeches,” and that early English version was known as the “Breeches Bible” ever after. (Towner, <i>Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion)</i>, 45)</blockquote>
Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) investigates:
<blockquote>The word...translated <i>aprons</I> (<i>hagōrōt</I>) [Genesis 3:7] is, in other places, an article of woman’s dress (Isaiah 3:24) or the belt of a warrior (II Samuel 18:11; I Kings 2:5; II Kings 3:21). It could be that the couple provided themselves with one covering, that of fig leaves which they made into an apronlike garment, or else they covered themselves first with foliage, then with skins. In either case, the man and the woman are successful in hiding their nakedness from each other, but that does not exonerate them from their sin of disobedience. (Hamilton, <i>The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series)</i>, 191)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/gordon-wenham STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gordon J. Wenham</a> (b. 1943) supports:
<blockquote>“Loincloths” חגרת [is]...elsewhere used of a belt (I Kings 2:5; II Kings 3:21; Isaiah 3:24). The usual term for a loincloth is אזור. Perhaps...the skimpiness of their clothing is being emphasized. (Wenham, <i>Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 276)</blockquote>
Artistic renderings of these garments are often misrepresentations. John C.L. Gibson (1930-2008) corrects:
<blockquote>It is not—repeat <i>not</i>—a single fig leaf that they use, something only to hide their sexual organs [Genesis 3:7]. The impressions of the great European artists painting this scene owe more to the teaching of the Church than to the text of Genesis. It is an “apron” made up of a number of fig leaves, in other words the normal clothing which one would expect early “man” in a hot region of the earth to wear. (Gibson, <i>Genesis, Volume 1 (Daily Study Bible)</I>, 129)</blockquote>
A common interpretation associates the fig leaf garments and consequently the act itself as being sexually suggestive (Genesis 3:6-7). Martin Sicker (b.1931) imagines:
<blockquote>Of course, the humans’ bodily configurations were quite different from those of the animals. The latter, going for the most part on all fours, did not directly expose their genitalia to one another, nor did they visually affect or incite one another’s passions. With the man and the woman, however, such was not the case. They now found the sight of each other’s nakedness arousing and embarrassing. It seemed appropriate to artificially restrict their view of each other. Thus they took large fig leaves and sewed them together with grass and vines and made coverings for their bodies [Genesis 3:7], thereby effectively concealing the exposure that made them experience a consciousness of shame. (Sicker, <i>Reading Genesis Politically: An Introduction to Mosaic Political Philosophy</I>, 30-31)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> (b.1952) and <a href=http://www.missouristate.edu/relst/victormatthews.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Victor H. Matthews</a> (b. 1950) connect:
<blockquote>The significance of the fig’s use may lie in its symbolism of fertility [Genesis 3:7]. By eating the forbidden fruit, the couple may have set in motion their future role as parents and as cultivators of fruit trees and grain. (Walton and Matthews, <i>Genesis–Deuteronomy (IVP Bible Background Commentary)</I>, 21)</blockquote>
Hugh C. White (1936-2001) argues:
<blockquote>The specification of the type of covering made indicates that the sexual organs were at the center of their new awareness of nakedness [Genesis 3:7]. This awareness of nakedness arises from the inner division and reorientation toward a narcissistic, objectifying form of consciousness, which comes to be attached to our outer sexual differences. Autonomous, narcissistic consciousness is androgynous and cannot admit binary sexual differentiation. Thus they intuitively act to cover their nakedness. (White, <i>Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis</I>, 137)</blockquote>
Robert Farrar Capon (1925-2013) pronounces:
<blockquote>The fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] ...covered their privy parts — their <i>pudenda</I> (to use the shame-filled Latinism). <i>That</I> was what the “aprons” were all about, you know. They weren’t gowns to flatter their figures, or headdresses to glorify their faces, or shoes to save their feet. They were itchy little chastity belts to protect their newfound — and useless — embarrassment. (Capon, <i>Genesis: The Movie</I>, 293)</blockquote>
<a href=http://paulkissling.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul J. Kissling</a> (b. 1957) discusses:
<blockquote>It is possible that for the imagined audience fig trees had sexually suggestive connotations and that they might see a critique against the fertility cults of Canaan...<a href=http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen N. Lambden</a> (“From Fig Leaves to Fingernails: Some Notes on the Garments of Adam and Eve in the Hebrew Bible and Select Early Postbiblical Jewish Writings,” in <i>A Walk in the Garden</I>, p. 76): “It is important for the understanding of Genesis 2:1-3-24 to note that the very first act of the first couple after eating the fruit of the forbidden tree was the making of fig-leaf ‘aprons’ [Genesis 3:7]. Modern commentators are generally disappointing in explaining the significance of this act – if indeed, it is commented on at all. The view that the first couple made specifically fig-leaf aprons because of the leaves of the fig tree, being the largest on any Palestinian tree, were more suitable for sewing together and making ‘aprons,’ is not very convincing. Also inadequate is the view that the first couple made fig-leaf ‘aprons’ because the forbidden tree itself, allegedly being a fig tree, provided them with the necessary material. Rather, it seems to me, the first couple’s act of making fig-leaf ‘aprons’ is an indication of the fact that, despite their becoming sophisticated or wise as a result of eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree, they were still so foolish as to imagine that they could adequately cover their ‘nakedness.’ Genesis 3:7b points to the folly of the first couple and also perhaps in the suggestive associations of the fig tree to the dangers of participation in fertility cults and rites.” I find <a href=http://www.brandeis.edu/facultyguide/person.html?emplid=a90338bd71f8b2c9ec8295b8f10ac3758474b621 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David P. Wright</a> [b. 1953]’s [Wright, “Holiness, Sex and Death in the Garden of Eden,” <a href=http://www.bsw.org/biblica/><i>Biblica</I></a> 77 (1996):305-29] suggestion of parallels with Gilgamesh and its equation of sexuality and acquisition of knowledge far-fetched. (Kissling, <i>Genesis, Volume 1 (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 195)</blockquote>
<a href=http://web.utk.edu/~religion/faculty/humphreys.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">W. Lee Humphreys</a> (b. 1939) wonders:
<blockquote>The most immediate result of eating the fruit of this tree is that “the eyes of the two of them were opened and they knew that they were naked” (Genesis 3:7). They react by stitching fig leaves together to make rather fragile aprons for themselves, a response in marked contrast to their reaction to their nakedness in Genesis 2:25. We might thereby conclude that this “Knowledge of Good and Evil” is a whole new level in the experience of human sexuality, a transformation of their understanding of themselves as sexed beings in a social world. This is an especially powerful human experience at puberty as physical changes in bodies and especially in reproductive biology spark dramatic changes in our experiences of ourselves and others as sexed beings. Have we at core a story of growing up? Is eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil a figure for the passage from childhood to maturity? Is Genesis 3 the story of the stormy passage we know as growing up—stormy for parents as well as children becoming adult? It is certainly in the area of one’s sexual identity that one makes basic and early moral decisions as an adult, deciding for oneself what is good and evil, and this fact is mirrored in the sometimes sustained attention given to sexual activity in early collections of laws (including biblical Torah). (Humphreys, <i>The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal</I>, 38)</blockquote>
Anthony A. Hoekema (1913-1988) advances:
<blockquote>Their sense of shame was the immediate response of a guilty conscience. Now, however, Adam and Eve both realized that they had done wrong, and so they contrived to cover themselves by sewing fig leaves together [Genesis 3:7]. “That the sense of shame should concentrate itself on that portion of the body which is marked by the organs of generation, no doubt has its deeper reason in this that man instinctively feels that the very fountain and source of human life is contaminated by sin.” (Hoekema, <i>Created in God’s Image</I>, 133)</blockquote>
Like eating from the fruit itself, reading the Adam and Eve story as a sexual awakening has negative repercussions (Genesis 3:1-21). <a href=http://neareast.jhu.edu/directory/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ellen A. Robbins</a> (b. 1945) evaluates:
<blockquote>We’ve inherited many preconceptions from the long history of interpretation. For example, take Genesis 3:7...It has long been assumed that this verse refers to the origin of sexual awareness, which is thus viewed as an effect of disobeying the divine command. Assuming that sexual desire is a consequence of sin reinforces an attitude towards human sexuality that is ambivalent at best. It comes from a time when the body was opposed to the soul, and all bodily desires were suspect. The opposition of body and soul provided the foundation on which the allegorical interpretation was built and in which women, identified with the body and sensuality in all its forms, became the source of all physical temptation..Claus Westermann [1909-2000] noted, on this introduction of sex and sexual shame into the interpretation of Genesis 3:7, “This explanation is in accordance with a very traditional Christian conception of the story of the “fall.” It is a telling example of how fixed and firm ideas can influence the understanding of the text.” (Robbins, <i>The Storyteller and the Garden of Eden</I>, 12-13)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.claytonsullivan.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clayton Sullivan</a> (b. 1930) traces:
<blockquote>Over the years theologians intensified Paul’s negative attitude toward flesh and body [Romans 6:6, 12; I Corinthians 9:27, 15:39; II Corinthians 12:7; Galatians 5:16-25, 6:7-9, 17]. The shame regarding genital organs (the penis and pubic areas) became a favored point of intensification. Theologians did this by elaborating even further the Adam and Eve story in the book of Genesis [Genesis 3:1-24]. Consider, for example, what Augustine [354-430] conjectured in <i>City of God</I>. According to Augustine, divine grace forsook Adam and Eve immediately after they had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [Genesis 3:7]. Moreover, they became “appalled at the nakedness of their own bodies. Thus, they took fig leaves, which were perhaps the first things to come to hand in their confusion of mind, and covered their shameful parts with them. For though their members remained the same as they were at first, they had not originally been a source of shame to them.” Ponder Augustine’s just-cited opinion that genitalia (the penis and vagina) are “shameful parts” and a “source of shame.”...But Augustine was not content merely to heap disgrace on genitalia. Instead, he also intensified Paul’s view—expressed in Galatians 5:17—that the flesh (behaving autonomously) possesses its own desires and is opposed to the Spirit. In other words, Augustine postulated an extravagant flesh-body rebellion. For him the flesh or body is a rogue unto itself, a lustful rebel against the soul, the source of spontaneous sexual desire. (Sullivan, <i>Rescuing Sex From the Christians</I>, 27-28)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.drmigueldelatorre.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Miguel A. De La Torre</a> (b. 1958) augments:
<blockquote>For some, like Augustine of Hippo [354-430], sex was the forbidden fruit that the first humans tasted. The reason Adam covered his genitals with fig leaves [Genesis 3:7], according to Augustine, was not due to modesty or shame, but rather because Adam’s penis was erect. Augustine succeeds in linking shame and sex to the fall of humanity. Both Adam’s erect penis and that of all men who follow him signify our will toward the flesh, over against the spirit. Adam’s uncontrollable penis symbolized his rebellion against God, making sex the cause for expulsion from paradise. An erect penis, philosopher <a href=http://www.michel-foucault.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michel Foucault</a> [1926-1984] reminds us, “[becomes] the image of man revolted against God.” The Christian problem with sex becomes desire itself. Sex, within Christian tradition, symbolized the choice for the material things of this world over against the spiritual things concerning the kingdom of heaven. Unfortunately, this type of interpretation has created a strong anti-body perspective from which sex is associated with shame, negatively influencing human development and relationships for the past two millennia, a perspective still prevalent in many circles with the Christian church. (De La Torre, <i>Genesis (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 77-78)</blockquote>
A sexually suggestive interpretation is not the only way to read Genesis’ story of the eating of forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:1-24). <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carol A. Newsom</a> (b. 1950) reveals:
<blockquote>Most readers are accustomed to thinking of this new knowledge as somehow signalling awakened sexuality, and there are some overtones of that. The fig-leaf coverings that the humans make for themselves are specifically loincloths for covering the genitals [Genesis 3:7]. But sex itself hardly seems to be the main point. Sexual difference was apparently what <i>adam</I> was talking about when he first saw the woman God had made from his own flesh and called her <i>ishah</I> [Genesis 2:23]. Nor can one readily find an exegetical basis for assuming that the woman and the man were ‘chaste’ in Eden. All that the text says is that they were naked and did not really notice [Genesis 2:25]—until now. (<a href=http://normanhabel.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Norman C. Habel</a> [b. 1932] and Shirley Wurst, “Common Ground: An Ecological Reading of Genesis 2-3”, <i>The Earth Story in Genesis</i>, 68)</blockquote>
<a href=http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/sanderst/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Theresa Sanders</a> (b. 1963) documents:
<blockquote>It is not clear that this gesture [Genesis 3:7] is meant to hide sexual shame...In fact, according to some interpreters, the nakedness of the first couple had nothing at all to do with sex. Several early Jewish sources say that prior to their eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve had been covered with a scaly skin and a cloud of glory. Once the man and the woman disobeyed God, their scales and the cloud dropped away, and thus the couple were “naked.” The implication is that the two people were ashamed not because of their sexuality but because there was now a visible sign of their disobedience...Another interpretation says that Adam and Eve were “naked” in that they had been stripped of the beauty of the commandment that they had just broken. Yet another notes that in the Bible, the word “naked” primarily conveys a sense of vulnerability. (Sanders, <i>Approaching Eden: Adam and Eve in Popular Culture</i>, 63)</blockquote>
<a href=http://asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-j-ellsworth-kalas/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J. Ellsworth Kalas</a> (b. 1928) expands:
<blockquote>Their first reaction was to become conscious—painfully so!—of their nakedness [Genesis 3:7]. We’re inclined to interpret this experience as a recognition of their sexuality. Sexuality was probably a factor, but far more was involved. The man and woman had come to see themselves in a new light, and they made fig leaf garments to hide themselves—not so much from each other as from themselves. It’s interesting that we still use the language of their experience to describe our feelings when we have told another person something that we had previously kept hidden or when we have an inner experience where we see ourselves more clearly. “I felt as if I were stark naked,” we say, just like the man and the woman in Eden. (Kalas, <i>Genesis (Immersion Bible Studies)</i>)</blockquote>
A far greater consequence of their snack is that the man and the woman move from being God-centered to self-centered. <a href=http://www.augsburg.edu/faculty/stratton/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Beverly J. Stratton</a> (b. 1959) pinpoints:
<blockquote>The couple’s opened eyes and new knowledge prompt a change in them from verbally to physically active: they sew fig leaves together and make coverings for themselves [Genesis 3:7]. The last remark, ‘for themselves’, suggests an additional change. The couple previously seemed dependent on God as the provider for food, beautiful trees, and even the breath of life. Now they act on their own, independently of God, as they make things ‘for themselves’. The contrast between Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:7 may suggest other changes in the couple as well: perhaps from naive to conscious, from innocent to knowing, from ignorant of social convention to aware of prudence, from accepting of their differences to fearing or being ashamed of them. (Stratton, <i>Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric and Ideology in Genesis 2-3</I>, 154-55)</blockquote>
Though most now wear commercially manufactured clothing, we still construct flimsy makeshift coverings for ourselves. John Calvin (1509-1564) generalizes:
<blockquote>All of us smile at their folly since, certainly, it was ridiculous to place such a covering before God’s eyes [Genesis 3:7]. In the meanwhile, we are all infected with the same disease. Indeed, we tremble and are covered with shame at the first pangs of conscience; but self-indulgence soon steals and induces us to resort to vain trifles, as if it were easy to delude God. (Calvin, <i>Genesis (Crossway Classic Commentaries)</i>, 45)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Perkins/PDF/People/NelsonCV.ashx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard D. Nelson</a> (b. 1945) agrees:
<blockquote>We, too, take inadequate measures to cope with these feelings and have our own psychological equivalents of fig leaves and hiding behind trees [Genesis 3:7]. Conceivably, we might also take a little human pride in the resiliency of our first ancestors! (Nelson, <i>From Eden to Babel: An Adventure in Bible Study</i>, 26)</blockquote>
<a href=http://terrynewbegin.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Terry L. Newbegin</a> (b. 1948) personalizes:
<blockquote>Genesis 3:7 is about you...and how you began to feel the loss of perfection within your own consciousness that you experienced in the first creation (garden). Once you transferred your focal point to an ultra ego personality consciousness you began to manifest your desires, thoughts, ideas, and beliefs in a dualistic study that reinforced your reality of positive and negative, good and bad, God and Satan as real. (Newbegin, <i>Genesis: Your Journey Home, 2nd Edition</I>, 66-67)</blockquote>
The process of generating coverings from fig leaves has been repeated time and again. <a href=http://www.mljtrust.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Martyn Lloyd-Jones</a> (1891-1981) asks:
<blockquote>Has it ever occurred to you that in one phrase you have a complete summation of the whole history of civilization? What have men and women been doing in this supposed civilization? They have simply been sewing together fig leaves to hide their own nakedness—that is precisely the meaning of what we call “civilization.” (Lloyd-Jones, <i>The Gospel in Genesis: From Fig Leaves to Faith</I>, 49-50)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.clevenljones.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cleven L. Jones, Sr.</a> (b. 1948) illustrates:
<blockquote>Adam and Eve sinned and attempted to clothe themselves in their own poorly tailored self righteous “fig leaf attire” (Genesis 3:7). It is as if they were saying, “We will look better when God stops by, after all we were given dominion [Genesis 1:26, 28] and this dominion has to include creativity. Perhaps if we cover ourselves, God won’t pay us any mind.” God sees through our weak attempts to make ourselves acceptable. We are like the child who behaves poorly in school, refuses to do homework gets a “D” grade and attempts to alter it into an “A.” He wants to be acceptable, save himself a scolding and make his parents feel proud. As a race we try to alter our grade before God. We live immorally, practice genocide, start unnecessary wars, provide limited relief or no relief to the less fortunate, seek power to abuse others, enact unfair laws, deny the real selfish motives behind our uneven laws, and try to alter our grade. As the first man was responsible for more than himself so are we. Adam and Eve seized the initiative to take control of their own lives and the world has not been the same. (Jones, <i>Genesis and Life</I>, 30)</blockquote>
Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952) broadens:
<blockquote>Having become conscious of their shame Adam and Eve at once endeavored to hide it by making unto themselves aprons of fig leaves [Genesis 3:7]. This action of theirs was highly significant. Instead of seeking God and openly confessing their guilt, they attempted to conceal it both from Him and from themselves. Such has ever been the way of natural man. The very last thing he will do is to own before God his lost and undone condition. Conscious that something is wrong with him, he seeks shelter behind his own self-righteousness and trusts that his good works will more than counter-balance his evil ones. Church-going, religious exercises, attention to ordinances, philanthropy and altruism are the fig leaves which many today are weaving into aprons to cover their spiritual shame. But like those which our first parents sewed together they will not endure the test of eternity. At best they are but things to time which will speedily crumble away to dust. (Pink, <i>Gleanings in Genesis</I>, 24)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.firstthings.com/featured-author/r-r-reno STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R.R. Reno</a> (b. 1959) explains:
<blockquote>Adam and Eve seek cover to hide their shame with clothes sewn from fig leaves [Genesis 3:7]. So it shall be with subsequent generations. Vice rarely parades itself in public. More often than not it takes on disguises. Pride becomes what we imagine to be a healthy self-confidence. Shameless sin disguises itself as an authentic existential stance that will not stoop to hypocrisy. We’re not so much greedy as responsible parents, laying up prudent reserves for the education of our children. It’s not gluttony or lust, but instead a world-affirming ethic that takes life seriously. The alchemy of rationalization sews together the fig leaves in many different ways. We do so in order to reclothe ourselves in a greater moral purpose, hiding the deep truth that we are living carnally, living as if the material world was the final truth that constrains and governs human life. (Reno, <i>Genesis (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 92)</blockquote>
Though it seems that human instinct dictates we cover up sin, it is beneficial to fight this urge. <a href=https://twitter.com/craiggroeschel STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig Groeschel</a> (b. 1967) advises:
<blockquote>When they ate the forbidden fruit and their eyes were opened, the Bible says, “They realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and <i>made coverings for themselves</I>. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and <i>they hid from the LORD</I>” (Genesis 3:7-8). Our natural response to shame is to cover ourselves and hide. Separation and isolation feel safer. As long as we hide, though, our Father can’t clean up our mess, leaving us no choice but to wallow it in. (Groeschel, <i>Love, Sex, and Happily Ever After: Preparing for a Marriage That Goes the Distance</I>, 100)</blockquote>
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and his wife and engage in the world’s first cover up (Genesis 3:7). Their choice of clothing shows that they are not concerned with comfort; they are consumed with hiding. As they will learn, you cannot hide from God (Genesis 3:8-21). Nor should you wish to do so.
<p><font color="#66CD00">What changes when the coupe eats the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6-7)? How should they have responded; what were their other options? In describing the world’s first garments, does the biblical author envision a leafy version of standard clothing composed of leaves or leafy loincloths (Genesis 3:7)? Why do they select leaves to construct their clothing? Why does the Bible specify the type of leaves? For whose benefit are the humans covering up: each other, God or themselves? How much time elapsed between the eating of the fruit (Genesis 3:6) and the wearing of the clothes (Genesis 3:7)? Why does God wait to appear, allowing the man and the woman time to construct their inadequate coverings (Genesis 3:8)? What would you cover yourself if you found yourself naked in the Garden? How is the invention of clothing depicted in other cultures’ origins stories? What were your first clothes? When have you employed makeshift clothing? Do you feel embarrassed when reading of your ancestors’ failure in Eden (Genesis 3:1-24)? Should you? When have you felt exposed? What modern day fig leaves do we string together to excuse ourselves before God? How did the couple think their story would resolve?</font>
<p>Though misguided, the couple’s cover up has been seen as an example of human ingenuity and industriousness (Genesis 3:7). Manufacturing clothing from fig leaves is an impressive feat.
<p>As a point of comparison, in the pilot episode of the television series <a href=http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/project-runway STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Project Runway</a>, aspiring designers were taken to a <a href=http://www1.nyc.gov/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">New York</a> grocery store and given only $50 and an hour to procure items to create a dress (December 1, 2004). The designers utilized aluminum foil, candy, garbage bags, shower curtains, etc. Ultimately, <a href=http://www.austinscarlett.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Austin Scarlett</a> (b. 1983) won the challenge with a cornhusk dress. The episode is naturally titled <a href=http://www.bravotv.com/project-runway/season-1/innovation>“Innovation”</a>. Adam and Eve’s exercise seems like a Project Runway challenge gone awry.
<p>Steven W. Boyd contemplates:
<blockquote>Consider their effort in preparing for this dreaded meeting. “They sewed fig leaves” [Genesis 3:7)...entails that they had the simulacrum of a needle and thread, which they had to manufacture from scratch. They sewed the fig leaves into a type of leaf fabric, which could then be made into clothing...that would cover their nakedness. (Boyd and Andrew A. Snelling, “Tacking with the Text: The Interconnection of Text, Event, and Time at the <i>Macro-level</I>”, <i>Grappling with the Chronology of the Genesis Flood: Navigating the Flow of the Biblical Narrative</I>, 498)</blockquote>
Dominic Rudman notifies:
<blockquote>It is worth noting the first action of Adam and Eve after eating the fruit: they seek to cover their nakedness by sewing together garments (Genesis 3:7). This, it has been argued, is an “industrious” act which parallels the actions of humanity in the Tower of Babel episode (Genesis 11:3-4). Once humanity have gained the ability to think independently, technological progress cannot be halted. (<a hfef=http://www.uclouvain.be/andre.wenin STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">André Wénin</a> [b. 1953], “A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing: Crossing Forbidden Boundaries in Genesis 3-4”, <i>Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History</I>, 462-63)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.aei.org/author/leon-r-kass/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leon R. Kass</a> (b. 1939) contends:
<blockquote>Sexual shame becomes the mother of invention, art, and new modes of cooperative sociality: note well, it is not the woman alone who sews [Genesis 3:7]. If the needle is the first tool, clothing is the first product, and hiding is the first goal of art. Clothing, a human addition to nature, at first hides the sexual from view. (Kass, <i>The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis</I>, 109)</blockquote>
In many ways the creation of clothing represents the birth of civilization and culture (Genesis 3:7). <a href=http://andy-crouch.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andy Crouch</a> (b. 1968) inquires:
<blockquote>What is the first thing that happens after the man and woman have eaten? Culture. “They sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves” (Genesis 3:7). They make something of the world to ward of their sudden exposure to one another and to God. Culture is no longer the good, gracious activity of tending a good, gracious world. It is a defensive measure, an instrumental use of the world to ward off the world’s greatest threat—the threat, suddenly a threat, of being known, of trusting one’s fellow creatures and one’s Creator. (<a href=http://artspastor.blogspot.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">W. David O. Taylor</a> [b. 1972], “The Gospel: How Is Art a Gift, a Calling, and an Obedience”, <i>For the Beauty of the Church: Casting a Vision for the Arts</I>, 34-35)</blockquote>
Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) argues:
<blockquote>Their pristine innocense is gone. In a sense, this action has already taken them outside Eden, for clothing is a characteristic of civilization. In the Gilgamesh Epic, putting on clothes is one of the tokens of the wild Enkidu’s abandonment of his outdoor life with the beasts of the field. (Sarna, <i>Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary)</i>, 26)</blockquote>
Despite these advancements, the clothing made from fig leaves denotes an abysmal failure (Genesis 3:7). The clothes are woefully inadequate and neither eating the fruit (Genesis 3:6) nor constructing the clothing (Genesis 3:7) produced the desired results.
<p><a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/kennethamathews STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth A. Mathews</a> (b. 1950) digs:
<blockquote>Their efforts to hide their shame are as puny as their efforts to hide from God since their man-made coverings are ineffective (Genesis 3:21. “Made” (<i>‘āśâ</I>) and “coverings” (<i>hăgōrōt</I>) anticipate Genesis 3:21, where God “made” durable “garments” (<i>kotěnôt</I>) from animal skins for their needed apparel. (Mathews, <i>Genesis 1-11:26 (New American Commentary)</I>, 239)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/sbramer/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen J. Bramer</a> (b. 1953) and <a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/kgangel/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth O. Gangel</a> (1935-2009) critique:
<blockquote><b>They sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves</b> [Genesis 3:7]. They tried to change these conditions by their own effort. But these leaves from the fig tree were neither long-lasting nor effective. (Bramer and Gangel, <i>Genesis (Holman Old Testament Commentary)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://andy-crouch.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andy Crouch</a> (b. 1968) opines:
<blockquote>The fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] are useful—barely—but they are not a delight to the eyes. They are strictly instrumental, hastily assembled to solve a problem and secure a measure of protection. They are torn from the living, good garden and stitched into a rudimentary, fading, dying, withering form of protection from—from what? Not even protection from the world, which has not yet, at this moment in the story, fallen under the curse. Just protection from one another, bone of bone and flesh of flesh [Genesis 2:23]. And protection from the one who had breathed life into dust [Genesis 2:7]. (<a href=http://artspastor.blogspot.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">W. David O. Taylor</a> [b. 1972], “The Gospel: How Is Art a Gift, a Calling, and an Obedience”, <i>For the Beauty of the Church: Casting a Vision for the Arts</I>, 34-35)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.apu.edu/theology/faculty/jhartley/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John E. Hartley</a> (b. 1940) bemoans:
<blockquote>Instantly becoming aware of their nakedness, the man and woman gathered <b>fig leaves</b> and made for themselves makeshift <b>coverings</b> [Genesis 3:7]. Ironically, the knowledge they acquired did not even give them the skill to make adequate clothing for themselves. Instead of being filled with pride of achievement and becoming like gods [Genesis 3:5], they were overwhelmed by a deep sense of inadequacy and disturbing self-consciousness. (Harltey, <i>Genesis (New International Biblical Commentary)</i>)</blockquote>
<p>The fig leaves’ deficiency has long been known. Irenaeus (130-202) interprets:
<blockquote>Now “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” [Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7, 9:10]. The understanding of transgression leads to penitence and God extends his kindness to those who repent. For [Adam] showed his repentance in making a girdle, covering himself with fig leaves [Genesis 3:7], when there were many other trees that would have irritated his body less. He, however, in awe of God, made a clothing that matched his disobedience...And he would no doubt have kept this clothing forever, if God in his mercy had not clothed them with tunics of skin instead of fig leaves [Genesis 3:21]. <i>Against Heresies</I> 3.23.5. (<a href=https://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/staff/profile/?id=670 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andrew Louth</a> [b. 1944], <i>Genesis 1-11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)</I>, 82)</blockquote>
Not only are the clothes insubstantial, they incriminate their creators! They are about as effective as treating a bazooka blast with a <a href=http://www.band-aid.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Band-Aid</a> as they only serve to highlight the very transgression that is attempting to be concealed.
<p>Hugh C. White (1936-2001) delineates:
<blockquote>They simultaneously reveal objectively the inward concealment of those desires which has occurred. An outer symbolic division of the body into revealed and concealed areas thus corresponds to the inner division between that which can and that which cannot be thought (or said). Inner concealment spontaneously gives rise to outer concealment...This, however, is a form of concealment that reveals precisely that which it is designed to hide, as does the hiding of Adam and Eve from God which follows [Genesis 3:8]. (White, <i>Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis</I>, 137-38)</blockquote>
Despite their efforts, Adam and his wife remain exposed before God. The inadequacy is evidenced in their reactions (Genesis 3:7). Claus Westermann (1909-2000) condenses:
<blockquote>The disruption is now heightened; the garments of fig leaves are ineffective at the sound of God’s footsteps [Genesis 3:8]. They now realize that despite the covering they are exposed before God; they are afraid and hide. (Westermann, <i>Genesis 1-11 (A Continental Commentary)</I>, 254)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.eerdmans.com/Mobile/Authors/Default.aspx?AuthorID=17614 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James McKeown</a> (b. 1952) inspects:
<blockquote>After eating the fruit, the first human pair lose their innocense and two new emotions grip them; fear and shame. They attempt to deal with their shame by using fig leaves [Genesis 3:7], and their fear drives them to hide among the trees of the garden [Genesis 3:8]. These strategies fail; fig leaves do not remove shame and it is not possible to hide from God. Since all else has failed, they resort to passing the blame [Genesis 3:12, 13]. (McKeown, <i>Genesis (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary)</I>, 35)</blockquote>
Deep down, Adam realizes he is still exposed. This is evidenced in his reply to God (Genesis 3:10). <a href=http://luc.edu/theology/facultystaff/vivianopauline.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pauline A. Viviano</a> (b. 1946) notices:
<blockquote>In the ensuing dialogue between Yahweh and the man, we note that the man, rather than answering Yahweh’s question “Where are you?” [Genesis 3:9], gives the reason why he hid—“because I was naked” [Genesis 3:10].The reason is appropriate, in spite of the fact that it appears to be untrue. He is not naked, he is clothed with fig leaves [Genesis 3:7]. However, in relationship to Yahweh, he is naked, that is, his relationship to Yahweh has been disrupted and remains so. Humanity cannot “cover up” its own guilt and shame and restore its relationship to Yahweh. It is Yahweh alone who can remove humanity’s guilt and shame. This is symbolized at the end of the story (Genesis 3:21), when Yahweh makes garments for the man and the woman. (Viviano, <i>Genesis (Collegeville Bible Commentary)</I>, 22)</blockquote>
<a href=http://firstemmanuelbaptist.com/about-us/message-from-the-pastor.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Hill</a> (b. 1956) presents:
<blockquote>Even though man had made the fig aprons in order to cover their shame [Genesis 3:7], when God spoke, they were as naked as ever...Our first parents stood naked, clothed only in their own attempts at righteousness...Each person shall one day stand before God Almighty and give account. A great choice is laid before everyone, however, to choose God’s provision and have everlasting life or to chose [sic] his own covering and be eternally separated from God’s gracious presence and loving attention. (Hill, <i>Foundations: A Commentary of Genesis 1 - 10</I>, 198)</blockquote>
Our covering today is as ineffective as our ancient ancestors’. <a href=http://paulkissling.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul J. Kissling</a> (b. 1957) relates:
<blockquote>The material used to meet that desire, fig leaves, is pitifully inadequate [Genesis 3:7]. When we as men and women try to fix our problems by ourselves which our sins against God have brought upon us, our remedies are just as pitiful. Fig leaves will serve as clothing no better than our own self-help strategies. (Kissling, <i>Genesis, Volume 1 (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 195)</blockquote>
The inadequacy of the fig leaves is endemic of a much bigger problem. <a href=http://drjohnphillips.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Phillips</a> (1927-2010) divulges:
<blockquote>Those fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] represent man’s earliest attempts to cover up his sin, to provide himself with a covering to cloak his guilt and shame. They represent every effort made by man to do something to make himself fit for the presence of God. Fig leaves would never do. They might be good enough between themselves, but they would never do to hide from the piercing eyes of God. All such human efforts wither in the presence of God. (Phillips, <i>Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Lisa Underwood Magro (b. 1965) interjects:
<blockquote>The aprons of fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] speak of man’s attempt to save himself by a bloodless religion of good works. (Magro, <i>Genesis: The Biblical Foundation of Civilization</I>, 23)</blockquote>
<a href=http://dm4truth.wix.com/derrickmccarson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Derrick McCarson</a> (b. 1984) buttresses:
<blockquote>When they sewed coverings of fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] this was the first act of man-made religion in history. These fig leaves represent man’s attempt to cover up his sin by his works. This is the essence of humanistic religion—man trying to make himself presentable in sight of all-knowing, thrice holy God. (McCarson, <i>Origins: An In-Depth Study of Genesis 1–11</I>, 143)</blockquote>
J.G. Vos (1903-1983) professes:
<blockquote>The clothing, which Adam and Eve made of fig leaves was not adequate [Genesis 3:7], for God clothed them with coats of skin (Genesis 3:21). It has been aptly observed that all man-made religious systems are in reality only fig leaves that man has sewn together to cover his guilt. Only the true, God-given religion of redemption by the shedding of the blood of a mediator can really clothe man with righteousness. (Vos, <i>Genesis</I>, 64)</blockquote>
Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) explicates:
<blockquote>Having lost all divine wisdom on account of his sin, Adam was no longer able to look out for his true salvation. A kind of wisdom does remain to him in political matters, even as in this instance he is not acting imprudently when he covers his private parts with a loincloth of fig leaves [Genesis 3:7]. But he has lost true wisdom and prudence, by which he might be able to cover his sin before God. For that, fig-leaf coverings are worthless. Adam couldn’t have made a tunic long enough but that the scoundrel he had become would have leapt out and appeared above his waist! <i>Commentary on Genesis 3:7</I>. (<a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jthompson/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John L. Thompson</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis 1-11 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture)</i>, 139)</blockquote>
It is unknown how long Adam wore the fig leaves. ’Erubin 18b records:
<blockquote>Rabbi Meir said Adam was a great saint. When he saw that through him death was ordained as a punishment he spent a hundred and thirty years in fasting, severed connection with his wife for a hundred and thirty years, and wore clothes of fig [leaves] on his body for a hundred and thirty years. (<a href=http://www.spst.edu/Kris-Kvam STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kristen E. Kvam</a> [b. 1954], <a href=http://www.gonzaga.edu/ACADEMICS/colleges+and+schools/College-of-Arts-and-Sciences/Majors-Programs/Religious-Studies/Undergraduate-Programs/faculty.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Linda S. Schearing</a> [b. 1947], <a href=http://www.depauw.edu/academics/departments-programs/womens-studies/valarie-ziegler/STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Valarie H. Ziegler</a> [b. 1954], “Rabbinic Interpretations (200-600 CE)”, <i>Eve & Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender</i>, 95)</blockquote>
The fig leaves’ inadequacy is painfully evident when God feels it necessary to provide new clothes, this time created from animal skins (Genesis 3:21). <a href=http://theology.nd.edu/people/emeritus-faculty/joseph-blenkinsopp/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joseph Blenkinsopp</a> (b. 1927) briefs:
<blockquote>The man and the woman cover themselves with fig leaves [Genesis 3:7], but this is no more than a provisional measure; they are later given apparel more suited to their new life outside the garden [Genesis 3:21]. The verdict on the man and the woman is not a punishment distinct from the expulsion into a harsher world, but simply a description of what life outside the garden will entail. (Blenkinsopp, <i>Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11</I>, 56)</blockquote>
The intended comparison between the two outfits is accentuated in the Hebrew (Genesis 3:7, 21). <a href=http://www.rug.nl/staff/j.t.a.g.m.van.ruiten/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten</a> (b. 1956) correlates:
<blockquote>Genesis 3:21 is a rewriting of Genesis 3:6g-7b. It has <i>verbatim quotations</I> with modifications, <i>additions</I> and <i>omissions</I>. (Ruiten, <i>Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1-11 in the Book of Jubilees</I>, 95)</blockquote>
In reclothing the couple, God provides a different type of garment (Genesis 3:21). <a href=http://growingupgirls.info/author.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jeffrey W. Hamilton</a> juxtaposes:
<blockquote>It is...obvious that not every choice of covering is acceptable. Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves into an apron (Genesis 3:7). The Hebrew word for the garment is <i>chargorah</I>, which means a garment that covers the midsection of the body, tied about the waist. The same word is translated in other passages as a girdle or belt. Adam and Eve’s attempt at clothing was unsuccessful, because they still considered themselves naked wearing the fig leaf aprons [Genesis 3:10]. When God visited them in the Garden, they hid themselves because they were naked [Genesis 3:8]...God ...took animal skins and made tunics for the man and woman (Genesis 3:21). The Hebrew word for tunic is <i>kethoneth</I>, which describes a shirt that hangs on the shoulders and reaches to the knees. (Hamilton, <i>Genesis: A Study of the Beginning</I>, 32)</blockquote>
<a href=http://start2finish.org/author/the10throcket/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael Whitworth</a> concurs:
<blockquote>God provided garments of animal skins for Adam and Eve to cover their now-shameful nudity [Genesis 3:21] (their self-made fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] had been little more than loincloths). The Hebrew noun translated “garments” (<i>kuttonet</I>) meant clothing that reached the knees or even ankles. God gave these garments to the first couple as an act of grace; he did for them what they could not do for themselves. (Whitworth, <i>The Epic of God: A Guide to Genesis</I>, 43-44)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen N. Lambden</a> grants:
<blockquote>As much uncertainty surrounds the exact meaning of words in the Hebrew Bible indicative of items of clothing, it is difficult to tell whether ‘aprons’ (חגרת, Genesis 3:7; alternatively, ‘loincloths’, ‘girdles’ or ‘sashes’?) signifies a less adequate means of attire than is implied by ‘coats’ (כתנות, Genesis 3:21; alternatively, ‘tunics’, ‘robes’, or ‘shirts’?), although this is possible. The fact, however, that the ‘aprons’ were made of fig leaves and the ‘coats’ of animal skins may indeed highlight the folly of the first couple as compared with the superior wisdom of God. Despite the acquisition of human wisdom, the first couple lacked even the knowledge of how to clothe themselves adequately. Their fig-leaf ‘aprons’ served no real purpose. (<a href=http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacr/about/staff/paul-morris STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul Morris</a> [b. 1954] and <a href=http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/deborah-sawyer%2859eb7fc1-ace5-453f-b6e6-ba48f3bbd3d5%29.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Deborah Sawyer</a> [b. 1956], “From Fig Leaves to Fingernails: Some Notes on the Garments of Adam and Eve in the Hebrew Bible and Select Early Postbiblical Jewish Writings,” <i>A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden</I>, 77)</blockquote>
Adam and Eve’s new attire is more suitable to life outside of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:21). <a href=http://www.firstthings.com/featured-author/r-r-reno STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R.R. Reno</a> (b. 1959) contextualizes:
<blockquote>In this enigmatic verse [Genesis 3:21] the theme of clothing and nakedness in the story of the original transgression reemerges. God seems to express care by providing the fallen man and woman with clothing to replace the woven garments of fig leaves. These clothes prepare the man and woman to live under the burden of their transgression. (Reno, <i>Genesis (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 95)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.newbold.ac.uk/academic-staff/department-theological-studies/dr-laurence-turner.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Laurence A. Turner</a> realizes:
<blockquote>God gives them both clothing [Genesis 3:21]. The substitution of the flimsy covering of fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] with the more durable one of animal’s skin might demonstrate God’s care, but at the same time confirms the permanence of the human dilemma (<a href=http://philrel.appstate.edu/research-publications/faculty-publications/dr-alan-hauser STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Alan J. Hauser</a> [b. 1945] 1982:32). Ironically, an animal was instrumental in humans becoming aware of their nakedness [Genesis 3:4-5], and animals are used to hide that nakedness [Genesis 3:21], just as eating from a tree produced knowledge of nakedness [Genesis 3:7], and leaves from a tree were used to hide that nakedness [Genesis 3:7]. (Turner, <i>Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary)</I>, 25-26)</blockquote>
Providing new clothing is an act of grace (Genesis 3:21). Johnson T.K. Lim (b. 1952) affirms:
<blockquote>God is...imagined as a tailor who provides clothing for Adam and Eve from animal skins to replace their fig leaves [Genesis 3:21]. By so doing he protects them and also shows his care and love for them both. (Lim, <i>Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis 1-11</I>, 205)</blockquote>
<a href=https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/celia-sinclair/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Celia B. Sinclair</a> (b. 1954) extols:
<blockquote>Our fig leaves (Genesis 3:7) are pitiful; what we long for and receive is the finery of God’s own making. To be clothed is to be given life (II Corinthians 5:4). The trial sentence of Genesis 3:9-19 describes the reality of life. God struggles with the humans and decides finally to respond graciously, to clothe them with care [Genesis 3:21]. There is simplicity in the action and dignity in the effect. God does for them what they cannot do for themselves. (Sinclair, <i>Genesis (Interpretation Bible Studies)</i>, 19)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.theschaefferfoundation.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Francis A. Schaeffer</a> (1912-1984) concludes:
<blockquote>In Genesis 3:7 we learn that Adam and Eve found out that they were “naked” so they “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” That is, immediately after their rebellion as they came face to face with what had previously been their great joy and their great fulfillment—themselves in open communion with God—they were now afraid and tried to cover themselves. But in Genesis 3:21 God took this covering away and gave them a coat of skins...This indicates, I believe, that man could not stand before God in his own covering. Rather, he needed a covering from God—a covering of a specific nature—a covering that required sacrifice and death, a covering not provided by man but by God. (Schaeffer, <i>Genesis in Space and Time</i>, 105)</blockquote>
<a href=http://theology.nd.edu/people/faculty/gary-anderson/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary A. Anderson</a> (b. 1955) asks:
<blockquote>God...is the one who clothes Adam and Eve [Genesis 3:21]. But why, we might ask, must <i>he</I> do it? They were fully capable of putting on their own fig leaves. Couldn’t they put on their own tunics of skin? (Anderson, <i>The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination</I>, 125)</blockquote>
God clothes his creation because it is a task only God can do (Genesis 3:21). <a href=http://rbseminary.org/dean-faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert R. Gonzales Jr.</a> (b. 1963) understands:
<blockquote>That Adam evidenced hope in a redemptive reversal that would emerge from Yahweh’s curse is suggested in his naming of Eve, which Moses positions immediately following the curse-sanction (Genesis 3:20). That Adam’s response is an act of saving faith is intimated by Yahweh’s reciprocal action of clothing the human couple to hide their nakedness, which signifies that Adam and Eve’s “fig-leaf” coverings (Genesis 3:7) were inadequate to cover their nakedness. Human nakedness, which in this context includes guilt and shame, can only be remedied by a covering that God himself provides (cf. Exodus 28:42), which covering signals the expiation of guilt (Genesis 3:21). (Gonzales, <i>Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in Genesis with Special Focus on the Patriarchal Narratives</I>, 51)</blockquote>
Conspicuously, artistic interpretations have often failed to adapt to the couple’s new attire: Adam and Eve are consistently depicted wearing their leafy loincloths, stuck perpetually in their flimsy, makeshift clothing as opposed to the new improved ensemble assembled by God (Genesis 3:7, 21).
<p><a href=http://theology.nd.edu/people/faculty/gary-anderson/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary A. Anderson</a> (b. 1955) observes:
<blockquote>Our author makes the most curious aside prior to expelling Adam and Eve from the Garden. In this brief interlude, Adam names his wife [Genesis 3:20] and then the Lord God steps forward, “and made for Adam and Eve garments of skin and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). Adam and Eve don’t die; instead they are given a change of clothes. They exchange their modest fig leaves [Genesis 3:7] for more substantial vestments—a truly extraordinary turn in our story. And things become even more peculiar when we turn to the iconographic representation of this scene. Almost no artist chooses to depict Adam and Eve as leaving the Garden clothed in such skins. This is clear in Michelangelo [1475-1564]’s <i>Temptaton and Fall</I>. Adam and Eve leave the Garden naked. But doubly odd is the fact that many icons found in Greek and Russian Orthodox churches portray Adam and Eve as clothed in Eden. (Anderson, <i>The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination</I>, 118)</blockquote>
Despite not always being acknowledged, Adam and Eve are supplied with new, satisfactory attire (Genesis 3:21). The new clothing is sufficient because God is its supplier.
<p>Adam and Eve’s experience in the Garden of Eden serves as a reminder that there are some things humans cannot cover up (Genesis 3:1-24). But there is no transgression that cannot be covered by the grace of God. We can be clothed with Jesus (Romans 13:14) and righteousness (Colossians 3:12) which effectively covers all of our sins if we only allow God to do so.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Has anyone else ever attempted to use clothing created from leaves? What are its limitations? How do you picture Adam and Eve, naked (Genesis 2:25,) wearing fig leaves (Genesis 3:7) or dressed in animal skins (Genesis 3:21)? Who is synonymous with one outfit? What is the least effective cover up in history? When has a cover up incriminated the guilty? When has a new wardrobe symbolized a new identity? Have you been clothed by God?</font>
<p>“It is ever so much easier to be good if your clothes are fashionable.” - <a href=http://www.lmmontgomery.ca/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">L.M. Montgomery</a> (1874-1942), <i>Anne of Green Gables</i>, p. 224Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-81763667563851721112014-11-26T15:00:00.000-08:002014-11-26T15:00:00.723-08:00The Elect Lady (II John 1:1)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5WXcJUNfXfU/VHUZUk9s2sI/AAAAAAAAI9k/MX-1hE4Rdtc/s1600/MysteryWoman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="282.667" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5WXcJUNfXfU/VHUZUk9s2sI/AAAAAAAAI9k/MX-1hE4Rdtc/s320/MysteryWoman.jpg" /></a></div><b>Which book is written to “the elect lady”? II John [II John 1:1]</b>
<p>Second John is a brief letter comprised of only thirteen verses (II John 1:1-13). It encourages its readers to remain steadfast in the faith (II John 1:4-6) and to reject false teachers (II John 1:7-11).
<p><a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/B/Gary-Burge STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary M. Burge</a> (b. 1952) describes:
<blockquote>Second John is a message “from the front lines,” much like a scrap of war correspondence discovered long after the battle has passed. The tension implied in I John takes on a desperate tone. Therefore, John writes with two purposes in mind: to buttress his followers’ commitment to the truth and to warn them about the severity of their opposition and the need to protect themselves...Because this is a personal letter, it follows conventional first-century epistolary form—unlike I John, which is not actually a personal letter but a public theological document. (Burge, <i>The Letters of John (NIV Application Commentary</I>), 231)</blockquote>
The epistle preserves correspondence between “the elder” and a “chosen lady and her children” (II John 1:1 NASB).
<blockquote>The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth. (II John 2:1 NASB)</blockquote>
Second John is the only New Testament book addressed to a woman (II John 1:1). Her precise identity remains a mystery as the Bible does not directly identify this “elect lady”.
<p>Allen Dwight Callahan (b. 1957) introduces:
<blockquote>Second John is an appeal to “the elect lady” [II John 1:1], a chosen authority in the community of the addressees: an alternative rendering of her title is “the chosen authority.” The letter is also addressed to “her children” [II John 1:1], that is, all those under her authority. In II John women, “elect ladies,” lead these circles and the Elder addresses II John to them. (<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/petersen.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. Petersen</a> [b. 1943] and <a href=http://divinity.wfu.edu/faculty/faculty-listings/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gail R. O’Day</a> [b. 1954], <i>Theological Bible Commentary</i>, 465)</blockquote>
Second John complies to the standard epistolary format of the period. <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Departments/Foreign-Languages/Ancient-Languages/Faculty/Karen-Jobes STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Karen H. Jobes</a> (b. 1952) compares:
<blockquote>Both II John and III John are in the conventional form of a Greco-Roman letter — the one as an open letter to the church personified as the “chosen lady and her children” [II John 1:1], the other written to an individual apparently known well by the author [III John 1:1]. Both end with the conventional greetings (II John 1:13; III John 1:15). (Jobes, <i>1, 2, & 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> (b. 1946) expounds:
<blockquote>The salutation follows the traditional letter form: A to B, greetings. In II John, however, the sender is identified by title rather than by name, the recipient is identified by a metaphorical reference (“an elect sister and her children” [II John 1:1]), and the greeting is delayed until after an elaborate description of the elder’s relationship to the recipients. (Culpepper, <i>The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts)</I>, 276)</blockquote>
Though its structure is normative, Second John’s addressee is peculiar (II John 1:1). <a href=http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lucat/user/926190604ce0d43c36ba732c5194e59b STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Birger Olsson</a> (b. 1938) observes:
<blockquote>This description of the letter’s recipients is unique [II John 1:1]. Early Christian letters—like ancient letters generally—normally have a name at this point, or they refer to the recipients as the church, God’s church, the saints, or the elect in a given location. This cryptic formula in II John early on led to other suggested translations: “to the lady (of the house) Eklekta and her children,” attested in the third century and after; “to the chosen Kyria and her children,” fourth century and after; “to the charming lady and her children.”. (Olsson, <i>A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach</I>, 48)</blockquote>
Second John deems its recipient an “elect lady” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “chosen lady” (NASB, NIV, NLT) or “very special woman” (CEV). The Message paraphrases the expression as “dear congregation”.
<p>To be precise, Second John refers to <i>an</I> (CEV) elect lady, not <i>the</I> elect lady (II John 1:1). Though supplied by most contemporary translations (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), the definite article is absent from the Greek text.
<p><a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-thatcher/3b/736/4b9 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tom Thatcher</a> (b. 1967) praises:
<blockquote>Stephen S. Smalley [b. 1931], 318...correctly emphasizes the absence of the definite article at II John 1:1 with the translation “to <i>an</I> Elect Lady”. (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>Hebrews ~ Revelation (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</i>, 514)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.mst.edu.au/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Colin G. Kruse</a> (b. 1938) comments:
<blockquote>The introductory greetings (II John 1:1-3) are addressed to ‘the chosen lady’ (<i>eklektē kyria</I>) and her children’. The rest of the letter has these people in mind, even though what is said is addressed sometimes to the ‘lady’ (<i>kyria</I>) using the second person singular (II John 1:4-5, 13), and sometimes to both the lady and her children using the second person plural (II John 1:6-12). (Kruse, <i>The Letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 37)</blockquote>
The epithet is distinctive. <a href=http://www.davidsnet.ws/biblical/page2/page2.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Peter H. Davids</a> (b. 1947) notes:
<blockquote>Elect Lady [is]...a title appearing only in II John 1:1, 5. The “elect lady”(Greek <i>eklektē kyria</I>) is said to have children [II John 1:1] and an elect sister, who also has children [II John1:13]. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Elect Lady”, <i>Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible</i>, 389)</blockquote>
<a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> adds:
<blockquote>There is no exact parallel to this designation in biblical or secular Greek. (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 27)</blockquote>
On the surface, the letter appears to be addressed to a woman (II John 1:1). <a href=http://www.bangor.ac.uk/spar/staff/thomas.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Christopher Thomas</a> (b. 1954) inspects:
<blockquote>The letter is addressed to the Elect Lady (ἐκλεκτη κυρία) [II John 1:1]. At first sight it appears that II John is addressed to a woman and her children, as ‘Lady’ (κυρία) is used frequently in the papyri, but usually qualified in some way...Cf. the examples in Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937], <i>Light from the Ancient East</I>, pp. 167, 192-93. (Thomas, <i>The Pentecostal Commentary on the Johannine Epistles</i>, 39)</blockquote>
I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) delineates:
<blockquote>The word translated “lady” [II John 1:1] is a respectful term meaning “mistress.” It is the feminine form of the word “lord”; possibly there is a hint of the church being the bride of the Lord [Ephesians 5:25-27; Revelation 19:7-8], so that her children are the spiritual offspring of the Lord and his church. She is “chosen,” an adjective often applied to Christians to denote that it was God who called them to be his people; the word always signifies those who have responded to this call and thus actually become the people of God. (Marshall, <i>The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 60-61)</blockquote>
The lady is said to be “elect” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “chosen” (NASB, NIV, NLT) (II John 1:1). <a href=http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lucat/user/926190604ce0d43c36ba732c5194e59b STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Birger Olsson</a> (b. 1938) defines:
<blockquote>The Greek word <i>eklektos</I> [II John 1:1] means chosen, exquisite, excellent, and <i>kyria</I> means lady (of the house), mistress...The fact that specifically <i>kyria</I> is used, rather than, e.g., <i>gynē</I> (“woman”), can be explained according to some people in terms of its associations with <i>Kyrios</I> “Lord.” <i>Kyria</I> is the feminine form of <i>Kyrios</I>. (Olsson, <i>A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach</I>, 48)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.danielakin.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daniel L. Akin</a> (b. 1957) construes:
<blockquote>“Chosen lady” [II John 1:1] is a term of endearment and respect...She is “chosen” because God elected her to belong to himself. God called the lady and those who comprise her family to be his own. The fact that she is chosen [“by God” is clearly implied] indicates the initiative of her election was with God and that her privileged position is not accidental. The spiritual status believers enjoy is the result of God’s grace and goodness. (Akin, <i>1, 2, 3 John (New American Commentary)</I>, 220)</blockquote>
Robert Kysar (1934-2013) designates:
<blockquote><b>Elect</b> is used of Christians elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 24:22; Romans 8:33; Titus 1:1), and means those selected from humanity by God to be his people. (Kysar, <i>I, II, III John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 123)</blockquote>
Though found elsewhere in the New Testament, the word “elect” is uncommon in the Johannine corpus. <a href=http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/theology/staff/profiles/academic-staff/john-painter STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Painter</a> (b. 1935) analyzes:
<blockquote>The adjective <i>eklektos</I> is used only here (and II John 1:13) in the Johannine epistles. There is a contested reading in John 1:34 where “the elect of God” has minority support against “the son of God.”...Revelation 17:14 describes the called and the elect and the faithful (all in the nominative plural) with the triumphant Lamb. The term is somewhat characteristic of I Peter (I Peter 1:1, 2:4, 6, 9). The verb “to choose” is used in John 6:70, 71, 13:18, 15:16, 19. (Painter, <i>1, 2, and 3 John (Sacra Pagina)</i>, 338)</blockquote>
Though the terminology is scarce in the Johannine literature, the concept may not be. <a href=http://theology.mercer.edu/faculty-staff/jones/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Peter Rhea Jones</a> (b. 1937) probes:
<blockquote>The idea of election may not be pronounced in John, but it does appear in terms of Jesus as the Elect One of God (John 1:34) and the disciples as chosen (John 6:70). Indeed, rather emphatically we find the Johannine Christ saying, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). (Jones, <i>1, 2 & 3 John (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 251)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/robert-h-gundry.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) correlates:
<blockquote>John describes this local church as “a <i>select lady</I>” [II John 1:1] in the sense that like the original disciples of Jesus, they’ve been selected out of worldly society (compare John 6:70, 13:18, 15:16, 19, but above all see Revelation 17:14). God has selected them for salvation (John 6:37, 39, 17:12). Mention of the selection assures them that they needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, pay heed to false teachers who tell them they lack what’s needed for salvation. John is going to warn against such teachers [II John 1:7-11]. (Gundry, <i>Commentary on First, Second, and Third John (Commentary on the New Testament)</i>)</blockquote>
Reconstructing the identity of the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) presents several challlenges. <a href=http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/faculty/bob-yarbrough/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert W. Yarbrough</a> (b. 1953) inquires:
<blockquote>Who is this “elect lady” (KJV, ESV, NRSV), “lady/Lady chosen by God” (TNIV, NEB), “very special woman” (CEV), or “dear lady” (TEV)? “She” presumably knew, but interpreters today are less certain. Moreover, she is spoken of as having children; is this literal or metaphorical? (Yarbrough, <i>1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament</i>, 333)</blockquote>
Equivocal addresses are not uncommon in the New Testament. <a href=http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/judith-lieu STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Judith M. Lieu</a> (b. 1951) asks:
<blockquote>Is the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] any more precise than the “all those who follow the equally valuable faith as us” of II Peter 1:1, or than “those called who are beloved in God and preserved in Christ Jesus” in Jude 1:1? (<a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> (b. 1946) and <a href=http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/religion/faculty/anderson.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul N. Anderson</a> [b. 1956], “The Audience of the Johannine Epistles”, <i>Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles</I>, 129)</blockquote>
The “elect lady” is shrouded in mystery (II John 1:1). <a href=http://www.briercrest.ca/faculty/profile.aspx?id=12 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Martin M. Culy</a> (b. 1963) acknowledges:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.westcotthort.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Brooke Foss Westcott</a> [1825-1901] (223) notes, “the rendering of this phrase is beset by great difficulties.” Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] (652-54) points out that either the first or second term may be construed as a proper name (“the Lady Electa” or “the elect Kyria,” though the former is highly unlikely given the use of της ἀδελφης σου της ἐκλεκτης at the end of the letter [“the children of your chosen sister ”, II John 1:13 NASB]); the expression may be viewed as a courteous way of greeting a female addressee (“dear lady”); or “Elect Lady” may be viewed as a figurative way of referring to the church. (Culy, <i>I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text</I>, 141)</blockquote>
<a href=http://luc.edu/theology/facultystaff/vonwahldeurban.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Urban C. Von Wahlde</a> (b. 1941) diagnoses:
<blockquote>There are two problems here [II John 1:1]. The first is the meaning of the title and the second is to whom it refers. The resolution of the second helps in the resolution of the first. (Von Wahlde, <i>The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three Johannine Letters (Eerdmans Critical Commentary)</I>, 225)</blockquote>
Many possibilities have been raised as to the elect lady’s identity. <a href=http://www.danielakin.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daniel L. Akin</a> (b. 1957) surveys:
<blockquote>This [II John 1:1b] is a unique designation of a New Testament letter, and it has engendered significant discussion. Interpreters are divided over exactly who <i>eklektē kuri kai tois teknois autēs</i> [“the chosen lady and her children”, II John 1:1 NASB] is, and the following views have been offered...1. It is a figurative reference to a local church and its members. II John 1:13 would likewise refer to another local church...2. It is a reference to the church universal (a view favored by Jerome [347-420])...3. The recipient is an individual lady and her children. (Akin, <i>1, 2, 3 John (New American Commentary)</I>, 219)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.mst.edu.au/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Colin G. Kruse</a> (b. 1938) relays:
<blockquote>Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] lists five interpretations for the meaning of ‘elect lady’: (I) the lady Electa, referring to a certain Babylonian lady named ‘Electa;’ (ii) ‘the noble Kyria’; (iii) ‘dear lady’, a colourless term of courtesy addressed to an individual woman; (iv) an elect lady, meaning the church at large; (v) an elect lady and her children, a symbolic reference to a church in a town at some distance from the community centre in which the author is living. Brown, like many others, adopts the fifth option. (Kruse, <i>The Letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 38)</blockquote>
Though many options exist, there is a clear favorite among modern interpreters. David Jackman (b. 1942) traces:
<blockquote>Some have taken the addressee to be an individual named Kyria (lady or mistress), or the Lady Electa (following Clement of Alexandria [150-250]). Some older commentators, Alfred Plummer [1841-1926] among them, regard her as a matriarch, perhaps a widow, ruling her family in the ways of the Lord. But most modern commentators (including <a href=http://www.westcotthort.com/>Brooke Foss Westcott</a> [1825-1901], R.C.H. Lenski [1864-1936], F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] and I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934]) opt for a corporate identity and see the destination of the letter as a local church, personified as a lady. Others (such as Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976]) suggest the catholic or universal church; but the church in that sense has no <i>sister</I> (II John 1:13). (Jackman, <i>The Message of John’s Letters (Bible Speaks Today)</i>)</blockquote>
For a time, the majority of scholars presumed that the elect lady was an historical individual. Though this reading is no longer dominant, it is possible and still has supporters.
<p><a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> contemplates:
<blockquote>Could <i>eklektē kyria</I> in II John 1:1...be taken in its more natural sense of a real woman? Four possible interpretations have been put forward: (a) <i>Kyria</I> might be a proper name, and <i>eklektē</i> an adjective (ancient Greek did not use capitals to indicate proper nouns); (b) <i>kyria</I> might be an adjective and <i>Eklektē</i> a proper name; (c) both <i>Kyria</I> and <i>Eklektē</I> might be proper names; (d) perhaps neither is a proper name. (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 27)</blockquote>
<a href=http://theology.mercer.edu/faculty-staff/jones/>Peter Rhea Jones</a> (b. 1937) annotates:
<blockquote>Early on, Clement of Alexandria [150-250] suggested that the Elect Lady was some influential woman by the name of Electa in a church in the vicinity of Ephesus. Other scholars such as Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937] and Johannes H. Ebrard [1818-1888] opted for an individual, some of them thinking of Kyria or Curia as a proper name. Still others recknoned simply with “Dear Lady.”...The author has even been associated with Ruth in the Old Testament (Rendel Harris [1852-1941]). (Jones, <i>1, 2 & 3 John (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 251)</blockquote>
There is a grammatical possibility that either “elect” or “lady” could represent a proper name (II John 1:1). If this is the case, the recipient would be the only named figure in Second John.
<p><a href=http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/faculty/bob-yarbrough/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert W. Yarbrough</a> (b. 1953) researches:
<blockquote>Is ἐκλεκτη κυρία (<i>eklektē kyria</I>, chosen lady) [II John1:1] the proper name of a lady (“Kyria”), with “chosen” as a modifier? (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:653 points out that “Eklecta” is unattested as a name at this time.) This view goes back to Clement of Alexandria [150-215]’s <i>Adumbrations</I> 4 (<a href=http://www.knoxseminary.edu/dr-gerald-bray/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gerald Bray</a> [b. 1948] 2000:231) and is also reflected in a Syriac version (<a href=http://www.westcotthort.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Brooke Foss Westcott</a> [1825-1901] 1883:224). Among commentators, William Alexander [1824-1911] (1901:283-86) takes this position, with great imaginative powers sketching her as a lonely but noble widow of heroic stature. I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] (1978:60n5) cites some older scholars who follow suit. A parallel might be Romans 16:13 where Paul writes, “Greet Rufus, the chosen [τὸν ἐκλεκτόν, <i>ton eklekton</I>] in the Lord.” Since II John lacks the definite article before “chosen” [II John 1:1], however, Romans 16:13 is not a good parallel (<a href=http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/theology/staff/profiles/academic-staff/john-painter STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Painter</a> [b. 1935] 2002:340 and many others). (Yarbrough, <i>1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament</i>, 333-34)</blockquote>
Like Eklekta (“elect”), Kyria (“lady” could also be a proper name. This view is ancient as well, dating at least to Athanasius (296-373). John Wesley (1703-1791) espoused this theory, writing, “Kyria is undoubtedly a proper name, both here [II John 1:1] and in II John 1:5; for it was not then usual to apply the title of lady to any but the Roman empress.” James Strong (1822-1894) also advocated this interpretation.
<p><a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> supports:
<blockquote><i>Kyria</I>, meaning ‘mistress’, ‘lady’ (cf. Aramaic ‘Martha’) is found as a personal name in both inscriptions and papyri; <i>eklektē</I>, meaning ‘chosen’, or ‘elect’(of God) is an appropriate epithet for a Christian leader (cf. Romans 16:13. Rufus, the elect in the Lord; Ignatius [35-98], <i>Letter to the Philadelphians</I> 11.1. Rheus Agathopous, an elect man). It has been objected that one might expect the definite article with <i>eklektē</I>. We can reply that this letter is not written in fully idiomatic Greek, having other linguistic peculiarities (cf. the occurrence of ‘Father’ both with and without the article in II John 1:3); if <i>eklektē kyria</I> means ‘the Church’ the absence of the article is odd...In favour of <i>kyria</I> as a common noun is its frequent appearance in the papyri as a polite and affectionate form of address to an older woman (cf. Oxyrhynchus Papyri 744, ‘to Berous my lady’, etc.) Against this has been argued the absence of ‘my’ with <i>Kyria</I> and lack of evidence for <i>Eklektē</I> as a personal name in contemporary papyri (so Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:653). Indeed George G. Findlay [1849-1919] alleged that ‘<i>Eklektē</I> occurs nowhere else in Greek...as a proper name’ (1909:23). One may reply that ‘my’ is not always found with <i>kyria</I> in the papyri, and although the name <i>Eklektē</I> has not so far been found in the papyri, it is attested in Greek inscriptions, along with a parallel male name <i>Eklektos</I> (known also in literary sources). We may mention also a series of inscriptions of imperial date from Rome with the woman’s name <i>Eclecte</I> or <i>Eglecte</I> (c.7x). Although the inscriptions are in Latin, the form of this name is Greek. The idea that <i>Eklektē</I> might be a personal name also receives some support from Clement of Alexandria [150-250], who thought that II John was written to ‘a certain Babylonian woman called Electa’ (according to <i>Adumbrationes</I>, a Latin translation of his <i>Hypotyposes</I>)...The idea that both <i>Kyria</i> and <i>Eklektē</I> might be proper names is described by <a href=http://www.westcotthort.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Brooke Foss Westcott</a> [1825-1901] (1902) as ‘very strange’, but such double names are common in the ancient world, and <i>Eclecte</I> occurs combined with other personal names in the Roman inscriptions mentioned. (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 27-29)</blockquote>
Most modern scholars have rejected this theory. <a href=http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/theology/staff/profiles/academic-staff/john-painter STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Painter</a> (b. 1935) dismisses:
<blockquote>If the addressee is named (<i>eklektē kyria</I>) we may understand either “to the lady Electa” (Clement of Alexandria [150-215]) or “to the elect Kyria.” Though each of these is theoretically possible, only Kyria is a well-attested name, and Romans 16:13 provides precedent for reference to a name with the epithet “elect”(<i>Rhouphon ton elekton</I>). As indicated by the example in Romans, we would expect the article with this form (<i>tē eklektē kyria</I>). Thus there are grammatical problems with the suggestion that <i>kyria</I> here is a proper name. (Painter, <i>1, 2, and 3 John (Sacra Pagina)</i>, 340)</blockquote>
<a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> defends:
<blockquote>A problem often raised with understanding <I>Eklektē</I> as a proper name is its reappearance in II John 1:13. Mention of two women with the same name in such a short letter might seem improbable, but the ancient world had a smaller range of women’s names than we do (cf. all the New Testament Marys). The woman in II John 1:13 need not be a blood sister; she may equally well be a Christian sister, herself a church leader. Alternatively <i>eklektē</I> in II John 1:13 could be the adjective ‘elect’. It might seem awkward to use the same Greek word both as a proper name and as an adjective within 13 verses, but ancient writers were not so sensitive to such grammatical distinctions as modern ones; the repetition of <i>eklektē</I> in II John 1:13 must deliberately echo II John 1:1, and it is likely the two women shared a common role. Incidentally the final greetings are not from the ‘elect sister’ herself, but from her children. If this is a real woman, she must either be deceased or at least not present with the writer. In either case it is hard to believe she is a church. (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 28-29)</blockquote>
Elect lady (II John 1:1) need not be a proper name for the epithet to designate an individual. <a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> recognizes:
<blockquote>The case for the ‘elect lady’ [II John 1:1] as a real woman does not stand or fall on taking <i>Kyria</I> or <i>Eklektē</I> (or both) as a proper name. ‘Chosen lady’ could equally be a sobriquet (or nickname), like the Gospel of John’s ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ [John 13:23, 18:15, 16, 19, 26, 26, 20:2, 3, 4, 8, 21:7, 20, 23, 24], for someone whom the author, for whatever reason, did not wish to name directly. (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 29)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-thatcher/3b/736/4b9 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tom Thatcher</a> (b. 1967) reflects:
<blockquote>The Greek <i>eklekē kyria</I> (<a href=http://www.zondervan.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=Edward+W.+Goodrick STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Edward W. Goodrick</a> [1913-1992] and <a href=http://www.zondervan.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=John+R.+Kohlenberger%20III STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John R. Kohlenberger III</a> [b. 1951] 1723 + Goodrick and Kohlenberger 3257) [II John 1:1] could literally mean “to the elect Kyria” or “to the lady Electa,” both proper names, or could be an honorary nickname for a Christian woman (“the Elect Lady”). Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], 132, advocates this last option arguing that the reader is a female Christian and the literal mother of the “children” John mentions. In his view, this explains the author’s “somewhat informal [self-] designation” as “the Elder” [II John 1:1] (cf. <a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a>, <i>The Johannine Epistles</I> [New Testament Guides, <a href=https://www.sheffield.gov.uk STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sheffield</a>: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], 27-29). In support of this interpretation, one might note Romans 16:13, where Paul refers to his friend Rufus as “elect [NIV, chosen] in the Lord.” (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>Hebrews ~ Revelation (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</i>, 513-14)</blockquote>
<a href=http://earlpalmer.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Earl F. Palmer</a> (b. 1931) documents:
<blockquote>Alexander Ross [b. 1888]...(<a href=http://www.eerdmans.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eerdmans</a>, 1954) argues that the letter is written to a person and her family who probably live in Asia Minor. This would mean that the letter therefore addresses her personal situation. J.L. Houlden [b. 1929] (<a href=http://www.harpercollins.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Harper</a>, 1973)...has observed that the word <i>kuria</I> (“lady”) is an equivalent to the name Martha in Aramaic, a well-attested proper name. (Palmer, <i>1, 2, 3 John, Revelation (Mastering the Old Testament)</i>)</blockquote>
The belief that the “elect lady” represented an historical individual was once dominant. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) footnotes:
<blockquote>Older scholars (e.g. Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], 57ff; David Smith 162 ff; Alexander Ross [b. 1888], 129ff; Leon Morris [1914-2006], 1271) took the phrase [II John 1:1] literally as a reference to a particular lady and her children. (Marshall, <i>The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 60)</blockquote>
This literal reading still has some advocates. <a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> directs:
<blockquote>For the ‘Elect Lady’ (or her sister) [II John 1:1] as probably an individual woman: Charles Bigg [1840-1908], The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (International Critical Commentary; <a href=http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Edinburgh</a>: <a href=http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/academic/academic-subjects/theology/t-t-clark/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">T. & T. Clark</a>, 1910), especially p. 197 on the ‘elect sister’...Leon Morris [1914-2006], in <a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D.A. Carson</a> [b. 1946], R.T. France [1938-2012] <i>et al.</I> (editors), <i>New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition</I> (<a href=http://www.visitlondon.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">London</a>: <a href=http://www.ivpbooks.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Inter-Varsity Press</a>, 1995), p. 1271...Dorothy R. Pape [1913-2011], <i>God and Woman</I> (<a href=http://www.oxfordcity.co.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Oxford</a>: Mowbray, 1977), p. 206...Donald Guthrie [1915-1992], <i>New Testament Introduction</I> (<a href=http://www.leicester.gov.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leicester</a>: Apollos; <a href=http://www.downers.us/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Downers Grove</a>, <a href=https://www.illinois.gov STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Illinois</a>: <a href=http://www.ivpress.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">InterVarsity Press</a>, 4th edition, 1990), p. 889. (Barnabas Lindars [1923-1991], Edwards and <a href=http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/thrs/staff/court.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John M. Court</a> [b. 1943], <i>The Johannine Literature: With an Introduction by <a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> [b. 1946]</I>, 131)</blockquote>
<p>Allen Dwight Callahan (b. 1957) contests:
<blockquote>The interpretation of the addressee’s designation as signifying a church rather than a female is an old one. Clement of Alexandria [150-250] claims that this epistle is addressed to the holy church in Babylonia because he reads “to an elect lady,” of II John 1:1 as a gloss for “the likewise elect [church] in Babylon” mentioned in I Peter 5:13. The interpretation is as venerable as it is strained, and flies in the face of the plain sense of the text. The Byzantine commentator Oecumenius comes close to the obvious: “He writes with commandments of the Gospel to a church or to some woman giving spiritual governance to her household. He writes this epistle to one of the women who have received the proclamation.” Apparently independently, this is the interpretation of the <a href=http://www.easternstar.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Order of the Eastern Star</a>, an African American organization for wives, widows, mothers, daughters, and sisters of the Prince Hall order of the Masons. Eastern Star rites claim five biblical women as heroines: Jeptha’s anonymous daughter [Judges 11:34] to whom the Order has given the name Adah, Ruth [Ruth 1:4], Esther [Esther 2:7], Martha [Luke 10:38], and Electa. “Electa” is the Elect Lady in II John 1:1. The sisters of the Eastern Star hold Electa to have been a martyr and assign to her the color red, symbolizing fervency and commitment. (Callahan, <i>A Love Supreme: A History of Johannine Tradition</I>, 11)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gty.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John F. MacArthur</a> (b. 1939) argues:
<blockquote>Many commentators believe the phase “the chosen lady” (II John 1:1) refers metaphorically to a local church. The more natural understanding in the context, however, is to take it as a reference to an actual woman and her children, whom John knew personally. The letter’s obvious similarity to III John, which clearly (III John 1:1) was written to an individual, favors the view that II John was also written to an individual. Further, it would be unnatural to sustain such a figure of speech throughout the whole letter. Such an elaborate metaphor is also not in keeping with the letter’s simplicity and the tenderness of its tone. Finally, the change from the singular form of the personal pronoun “you” in II John 1:5 to the plural form in II John 1:12 applies more naturally to a woman and her children than to a church and its members. (MacArthur, <i>1 – 3 John (MacArthur New Testament Commentary)</I>, 212)</blockquote>
<a href=http://earlpalmer.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Earl F. Palmer</a> (b. 1931) agrees:
<blockquote>I find it hard to agree with the church theory. It makes better sense in my view to interpret this letter in its most obvious sense, as a letter written by John to an esteemed friend and her family. The fact that no city designation is made also supports this view. (Palmer, <i>1, 2, 3 John, Revelation (Mastering the Old Testament)</i>)</blockquote>
Judith K. Applegate (b. 1948) bolsters:
<blockquote>First, it has been shown that there is only one clear instance of the title ‘elect’ used to refer to a named person in the New Testament (Romans 16:13), but not a church. In addition, there are at least two New Testament greetings that address unnamed women, even in the midst of other greetings to women who are named (Romans 16:13, 15). In light of these references, it is not impossible to conceive of an unnamed woman being addressed by the title ‘elect’, rather than by name. Second, Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] points out that Johannine literature contains other references to titled, but unnamed people, such as the ‘beloved disciple’ [John 13:23, 18:15, 16, 19, 26, 26, 20:2, 3, 4, 8, 21:7, 20, 23, 24] and the ‘mother of Jesus’ [John 2:1, 3]. In this tradition it would not seem unusual to find another titled woman addressed without reference to her name. (<a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> [b. 1956] with Maria Mayo Robins, “The Co-Elect Woman of I Peter 1”, <i>A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebews</I>, 95)</blockquote>
There is precedent for a woman guiding a house church. <a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> (b. 1946) concedes:
<blockquote>It is possible that <b>“the chosen lady”</b> [II John 1:1] is a particular woman in whose house the church met, as in the case of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12), or Lydia (Acts 16:40). (<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig A. Evans</a> [b. 1952], <i>John, Hebrews–Revelation (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary)</I>, 193)</blockquote>
If the elect lady is an historical figure, it adds intrigue to her identity. <a href=http://www.andrews.edu/sem/faculty_staff/emeriti/george-knight.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George R. Knight</a> (b. 1941) reveals:
<blockquote>The “chosen lady” [II John 1:1]...has elicited a great deal of discussion. It could certainly have been an individual. Those who have followed that route have speculated much regarding who she might be. Favorite candidates are Mary the mother of Jesus and Martha of Bethany. Some argue for Martha because the word for “lady” in Aramaic (the common language of first-century Palestine) was “Martha,” while others sponsor Mary since Jesus left her in the care of John, and her traditional area of residence in her later years was Asia Minor. But all such theories are nothing but speculation. (Knight, <i>Exploring the Letters of John & Jude: A Devotional Commentary</I>, 182)</blockquote>
As noted, Mary the mother of Jesus, perhaps the most “elect” woman of all (Luke 1:30), is among the candidates posited. Though Mary would certainly have been worthy of the title, this hypothesis raises the potentially divisive possibility that there was need to write a letter to Mary to warn her about being deceived by false teachers (II John 1:7-11).
<p>There are significant implications to the elect woman’s role if she represents a literal, historical figure (II John 1:1). <a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> wonders:
<blockquote>One sometimes suspects that a reason why the ‘elect lady’ [II John 1:1] has been so rarely taken as an individual is reluctance to assume that a woman could have led a church. But female church leaders are attested elsewhere in the New Testament: we note particularly ‘Nympha and the church at her house’ (Colossians 4:15) and Phoebe, minister or deacon of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 29)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.stanleyjgrenz.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stanley J. Grenz</a> (1950-2005) and <a href=http://seminary.bethel.edu/academics/faculty/st-paul/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Denise Muir Kjesbo</a> (b. 1957) investigate:
<blockquote>Is there a specific example that offers...confirmation that women acted as congregational leaders? In this context, egalitarians occasionally cite the “co-elect woman” Peter perhaps mentions in the close of his first epistle (I Peter 5:13). More commonly mentioned, however, is the “elect lady” of the Johannine community [II John 1:1]. John the elder addresses his second epistle to “the elect lady” and her children” (II John 1:1)...The egalitarian use of this text hinges on the identity of the recipient of the letter...Several clues in the epistle suggest that its recipient may have been a woman church leader—a prominent patron of a Christian community, like Mary [Acts 12:12] or Lydia [Acts 16:14, 40]—together with the congregation under her care. The word translated “lady” (<i>kyria</I>) fits best with this personal interpretation. The term is the feminine form of “lord” (<i>kyrios</I>), which could connote a guardian, the master of a house or the head of a family. The personal interpretation is preferable in that the New Testament nowhere uses the word as a metaphor for a congregation. This interpretation also fits best within the address itself. If “lady” refers to the church and not a female church leader, the greeting to “her children” is redundant. John’s use of children elsewhere of “my children” to address the members of his community (I John 1:1, 12-14, 3:7) suggests that in this text “her children” refers to the community ruler under the watchful care of this leader, many of whom may have become believers through her witness...In addition to the form of address, the admonition to reject false teachers [II John 1:7-11] favors the suggestion that the letter was intended for the leader of a house church...To date, the exegetical question has not been answered definitively. There are good reasons to see in this epistle support for the contention that the early congregation had women leaders. But the exegetical case is admittedly inconclusive. (Grenz and Kjesbo, <i>Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry</I>, 91-92)</blockquote>
<a href=http://institute.jesdialogue.org/about/staff/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leonard Swidler</a> (b. 1929) deliberates:
<blockquote>Though in New Testament times there was no “monarchial episcopacy,” <i>episkopoi</I> (literally “overseers”) did appear late in the period as sort of chairpersons of committees of presbyters. Many scholars argue that the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] (lady—<i>kyria</I>, as parallel to lord,<i>kyrios</I>) to whom the Second Epistle of John is addressed, and her “elect sister,” whose children send greetings [II John 1:13], must be “symbols” of churches. But they are perhaps just as properly understood as real persons. (For a similar view, see Ernst Gaugler [1891-1963], <i>Die Johannesbriefe</I>, p. 283; <a href=https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/en STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Zurich</a>: <a href=http://www.evz-verlag.de/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">EVZ-Verlag</a>, 1964). Judging from the content of the letter, the elect lady is responsible not only for her natural children but also for the Christians in her charge (a house church as with Priscilla [Acts 18:2, 18, 26; Romans 16:13; I Corinthians 16:19; II Timothy 4:19], Nympha [Colossians 4:15], etc.?); does she not then have the function of an “overseer,” <i>episkopa</I>, even though the title is not mentioned, but rather <i>kyria</i> is? Her sister also?...Already within the same century when John’s epistle was probably written, i.e, the second century, church father Clement of Alexandria [150-250] spoke of “elect persons” as a designation for officers of the church—which included not only bishops but also widows—supporting the contention that the “elect” lady of II John could be properly be understood as a generic term for church officers. (Swidler, <i>Biblical Affirmations of Woman</I>, 315-16)</blockquote>
The evidence is inconclusive. <a href=http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/theology/staff/profiles/academic-staff/john-painter STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Painter</a> (b. 1935) confesses:
<blockquote>This decision concerning the meaning of the opening [II John 1:1] and closing forms of address [II John 1:13] has nothing to do with the question of whether the leaders of such churches might have been women. We know too little of the situation to hazard an informed guess in relation to the church to which II John was addressed. Certainly the possibility that the leader of the church addressed was a woman should not be excluded. (Painter, <i>1, 2, and 3 John (Sacra Pagina)</i>, 334)</blockquote>
If the “natural” reading of II John 1:1 is that the elect woman is a literal female human, the equally natural inference is that at the very least she has influence on a Christian community.
<p>As has been documented, most modern scholars have rejected the idea of a literal individual in favor of a metaphorical church (II John 1:1). <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/B/Gary-Burge STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary M. Burge</a> (b. 1952) rebuffs:
<blockquote>An ancient tradition has thought “chosen lady” [II John 1:1] refers to a person. Both words are personal names for women in Greek (Electa, Kyria). But this usage here is unlikely. Not only does the tone of the letter imply a wider audience, but the letter itself lapses into the plural at many points (II John 1:5, 6, 8, 10, 12). (Burge, <i>The Letters of John (NIV Application Commentary</I>), 231)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/faculty/bob-yarbrough/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert W. Yarbrough</a> (b. 1953) remarks:
<blockquote>If neither ἐκλεκτη nor κυρία is apt to be a personal name, the possibility raised and rightly rejected by <a href=http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/home.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William Loader</a> [b. 1944] (1992:84-85) that this refers to a prominent Christian sister is unlikely. Apart from the unsuitedness of either of the words for this purpose, the discourse in the epistle shifts so frequently to second-person plural [II John 1:6-12] that most likely a group, not an individual, is being addressed. (Yarbrough, <i>1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament</i>, 334)</blockquote>
William Barclay (1907-1978) rejects:
<blockquote>It is possible to take <i>Kuria</I> as a proper name...The objections are threefold. (a) It seems unlikely that any single individual could be spoken of as loved by all those who have known the truth (II John 1:1). (b) II John 1:4 says that John rejoiced when he found some of her children walking in the truth; the implication is that others did not walk in the truth. This would seem to imply a number greater than one woman’s family could contain. (c) The decisive objection is that, throughout the letter, the <i>eklektē kuria</I> is addressed sometimes in the singular and sometimes in the plural. The singular occurs in II John 1:4, 5, 13;and the plural occurs in II John 1:6, 8, 10, 12. It would be almost impossible that an individual would be addressed in this way. (Barclay, <i>The Letters of John and Jude (New Daily Study Bible)</I>, 147)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) further renounces:
<blockquote>It is not impossible that an individual, the Lady Electa (the head of a house church?), is being addressed but there are several reasons to reject this conclusion: (1) It is most natural to take II John 1:13 as a reference to a sister church, where the author worships, whose members are called offspring and send greetings. (2) Notice that the author calls himself “<i>the</I> old man/elder” [II John 1:1]. That is, he is the familiar “old man,” not just an anonymous elder, and he assumes authority over the audience. Notice, by contrast, that “elect lady” has no definite article before the word in question, suggesting that we are not dealing with a particular individual. “While the addressees are referred to as ‘the chosen lady and her children’ in II John 1:1 and the elder says ‘it has given me great joy to find some of your [singular] children walking in the truth’ in II John 1:4, in the rest of the letter (II John 1:6,8, 10, 12) he addresses all of his readers in the second person plural, suggesting that’“the chosen lady and her children’ [II John 1:1] is another way of addressing all members of a local church.” (3) Notice that the document concerns community problems, not those of an individual, and so it does not read like III John, which is a personal letter [III John 1:1]. (4) The reference to the giving of a new command [II John 1:5] seems to imply a community of believers to whom it was given. In the Old Testament and elsewhere in the New Testament the people of God sometimes are personified as a woman (cf. Isaiah 54:1-8; Galatians 4:25; Ephesians 5:22-25; II Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 12:7, 21:2). It is perfectly natural for our author to address his audience this way. It would be far less appropriate to address a particular individual in this vague sort of way in a letter, and III John shows that the author is not reluctant to use personal names where appropriate [III John 1:1, 9, 12]. Thus I conclude that the “lady” is the church addressed, and her children are the members of the house church. (Witherington, <i>Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John</I>, 565-66)</blockquote>
The “elect lady” (II John 1:1) as a personification of a church is now the standard view among contemporary scholars. <a href=http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/faculty/bob-yarbrough/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert W. Yarbrough</a> (b. 1953) determines:
<blockquote>“It is now generally agreed that this title [II John 1:1] refers to a sister church” (<a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> [b. 1946] 1998:276; cf. Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:654-55; <a href=http://divinity.wfu.edu/faculty/faculty-listings/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gail R. O’Day</a> [b. 1954] 1992:375; <a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> [b. 1951] 2006:563-64). <a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/mthompson/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Meye Thompson</a> [b. 1954] (1992:151) points out that the people of God, whether Israel or the church, are frequently referred to in Scripture as a woman or bride, whether of God or of Christ (Isaiah 54:1, 6, 13; Jeremiah 6:2, 31:21, 32; John 3:29; Galatians 4:25-26; Ephesians 5:22; Revelation 18:1-19:21). First Peter refers to “elect” (ἐκλεκτοις, <i>ekletois</I>) sojourners (I Peter 1:1) as the author writes from a “co-elect” (συνεκλεκτή, <i>syneklektē</I>) congregation in “Babylon”—likely Rome (I Peter 5:13)—showing that ἐκλεκτη can denote a local church (Brown 1982:655). (Yarbrough, <i>1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament</i>, 334)</blockquote>
Rodney Combs (b. 1965) enumerates:
<blockquote>A personification designating a local congregation of believers...seems the best interpretation for several reasons: the language of love and the command given to love in II John 1:5 seems inappropriate for an individual; there are no explicit personal references such as those found in III John [III John 1:1, 9, 12]; the writer switches between “you” singular [II John 1:4-5, 13] and “you” plural [II John 1:6-12] often in the letter (unobservable in most modern translations) while being consistent with the singular in III John; and it was normal to personify towns or institutions in the first century much as we do today. (Combs, <i>I, II & III John (Shepherd’s Notes)</i>)</blockquote>
<A href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-walls/59/a70/239 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Walls</a> (b. 1953) and <a href=http://bravenewdiscipleship.com/about/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Max Anders</a> (b. 1947) support:
<blockquote>The lack of any personal references in the letter, in contrast to III John [III John 1:1, 9, 12], suggests that it is addressed to a church. In that case, it might be a sister church to the church John wrote to in his first epistle. (Walls and Anders, <i>I & II Peter, I, II, & III John, Jude (Holman New Testament Commentary)</I>, 236)</blockquote>
I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) presumes:
<blockquote>“The chosen lady and her children” [II John 1:1]...is a metaphorical way of saying “the church and its members.” If the letter was sent to a particular church, there was no need to specify more particularly which church was meant—and this may have been indicated on the package containing the letter. The personification of a community was not uncommon in ancient writings. Jerusalem was regarded by the Jews as the mother of the nation [Isaiah 54:1-8; Baruch 4:30-37, 5:5; Galatians 4:25; Revelation 12:17], and it was natural for Christians to think similarly of the church. When Peter writes about her “who is in Babylon, chosen together with you” (I Peter 5:13), he is using the same idea...The interchange of singular [II John 1:4-5, 13] and plural [II John 1:6-12] in the letter and the reference to the lady’s sister [II John 1:13] all support the view that the writer is personifying the church. For detailed argument in support of this position see Alan England Brooke [1863-1939], 167-70. (Marshall, <i>The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 60)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lucat/user/926190604ce0d43c36ba732c5194e59b STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Birger Olsson</a> (b. 1938) contends:
<blockquote>A collective sense of the term <i>kyria</I> [II John 1:1] is most likely: the word “lady” indicates a local (house-)church, and her children are its individual members. Biblical linguistic patterns, the vacillation between you-singular [II John 1:4-5, 13] and you-plural [II John 1:6-12] in the letter, the qualifier “elect,” and the fondness for the collective aspect of Jesus’ disciples in the Johannine writings, speaks in favor of this reading. (Olsson, <i>A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach</I>, 48)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/faculty/bob-yarbrough/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert W. Yarbrough</a> (b. 1953) suggests:
<blockquote>The word translated “lady” is the Greek word <i>kyria</I>...This Greek word was also used for a sociopolitical subdivision in Athens, a subdivision of the larger <i>ekklesia</I> (often translated in the New Testament as “church”). John appears to be using a word for a local congregation that is not attested elsewhere in early Christian writings. The word is chosen because of distinctive local social and linguistic conventions about when we have no additional information. “Chosen lady,” then, simply means a local congregation who, as God’s people, are by definition “elect” or “chosen” (a common term for Christians, see, e.g., Romans 16:13; I Peter 1:1, 2:9). (<a href=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/clinton_arnold/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clinton E. Arnold</a> [b. 1958], <i>Hebrews to Revelation (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</i>, 96-97)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.mst.edu.au/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Colin G. Kruse</a> (b. 1938) critiques:
<blockquote><a href=http://divinity.uchicago.edu/hans-josef-klauck STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Hans-Josef Klauck</a> [b. 1946] points out that Walter Bauer [1870-1960], William F. Arndt [1880-1957] and F. Wilbur Gingrich [1901-1993]’s <i>A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament</I> is misleading when it cites Hellenistic sources (which include references to <i>kyria ekklēsia</I>) in support of an interpretation of <i>eklektē kyria</I> as lady congregation. The references cited refer to an Athenian assembly and provide no support for a metaphorical interpretation of <i>kyria ekklēsia</I>. Nevertheless, Klauck agrees with most modern commentators that <i>eklektē kyria</I> does refer to the congregation, and he finds support for this interpretation in the many references in the Old Testament and Apocrypha to Israel as wife, bride, mother, daughter, etc. (Kruse, <i>The Letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 38)</blockquote>
Though not always preeminent, the theory that the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) represents the church is ancient. Hilary of Arles (403-449) asserts:
<blockquote>The elect lady [II John 1:1] is clearly a church to which the letter is written. It is elect in faith and mistress of all virtues. <i>Introductory Commentary on II John</I>. (<a href=http://www.knoxseminary.edu/dr-gerald-bray/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gerald Bray</a> [b. 1948], <i>James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)</i>)</blockquote>
That the “elect lady” refers to a church is now undoubtedly the dominant view. <a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/mthompson/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Meye Thompson</a> (b. 1954) catalogs:
<blockquote>Many commentators hold to the interpretation of <i>the chosen lady</I> as a personification of a local church and its members (Glenn W. Barker [1920-1984] 1981:361; Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:654; F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] 1970:137; C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] 1946:144; Kenneth Grayston [1914-2005] 1984:152; J.L. Houlden [b.1929] 1973:142; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] 1978:60; Stephen S. Smalley [b. 1931] 1984:318; <a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/d-moody-smith STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D. Moody Smith</a> [b. 1931] 1991:139; <a href=http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John R.W. Stott</a> [1921-2011] 1988:204), since the verbs and pronouns of the epistle are all in the plural (“you all”) [II John 1:6-12]. Moreover, the New Testament elsewhere speaks of the church as a woman or bride, and when greetings are sent from <i>the children of your elect sister</I> (II John 1:13), it suggests the greetings from one church to another. (Thompson, <i>1-3 John (IVP New Testament Commentary)</I>, 150-551)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-thatcher/3b/736/4b9 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tom Thatcher</a> (b. 1967) echoes:
<blockquote>Most modern commentators...conclude that “the Elect Lady” is a general reference to an entire congregation, so that “her children” are the individual members of that congregation (so J.L. Houlden [b. 1929], 142; <a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> [b. 1946], 117; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], 60-61; <a href=http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John R.W. Stott</a> [1921-2011], 203-04; <a href=http://old.itc.edu/Faculty-Staff%20New/faculty_staff_pg3.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Rensberger</a> (b. [1948], 148). This reading is supported by the closing verse of II John, where the elder sends greetings from “the children of your elect [NIV, chosen] sister,” apparently the congregation of which John is a member (II John 1:13). While it is possible that both congregations were led by individual Christian women, it seems more likely that the terms “lady” and “sister” are used metaphorically to portray a familial relationship between the two churches. Outside the Johannine literature, the New Testament frequently portrays the church as a woman or bride of the counterpart of Jesus (II Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:22-32; Revelation 19:6-9). (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>Hebrews ~ Revelation (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</i>, 514)</blockquote>
Some have seen Second John as having been written not to a single church, but rather to multiple churches. <a href=http://www.briercrest.ca/faculty/profile.aspx?id=12 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Martin M. Culy</a> (b. 1963) examines:
<blockquote>The greeting from τὰ τέκνα της ἀδελφης σου της ἐκλεκτης [“The children of your chosen sister”, II John 1:13 NASB] makes it clear that ἐκλεκτη κυρία [“the chosen lady and her children”, II John 1:1 NASB] cannot be a metaphor for the universal church (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], 653). Brown (654) thus posits that the lack of article with ἐκλεκτη κυρία marks this as “a circular letter meant to be read in several communities. (Culy, <i>I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text</I>, 141-42)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/>Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) infers:
<blockquote>In II John the author clearly is at some distance from the audience. Notice also that in II John the church is addressed rather formally as the “Elect Lady” [II John 1:1]. I therefore agree with Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] that in II-III John we have documents written in order chronologically to two different but related house churches over which “the old man”[II John 1:1] has some jurisdiction. The picture that one gets from both Paul and the later writings of Ignatius [35-98] is that Ephesus had numerous house churches, as did the outlying cities. But are the congregations addressed in II-III John merely in the suburbs of Ephesus? Probably not. The writing of these letters suggests that these churches are far enough away that letters needed to be written to them. (Witherington, <i>Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John</I>, 406)</blockquote>
I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) relays:
<blockquote>Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], 107ff, thinks that the letter is a “catholic” epistle to be taken to a number of churches. But to justify this view he has to argue that the details in the letter which suggest one particular destination are fictitious. (Marshall, <i>The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 60)</blockquote>
Bultmann’s proposal has been largely rejected based upon the fact that the church universal would have no sister (II John 1:13).
<p>The use of feminine language for a church has precedents; even the Greek word for church is feminine. <a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> (b. 1946) documents:
<blockquote>In Revelation, the Lord returns for his bride, the church (Revelation 19:7-8), and I Peter 5:13 speaks of the church as “she who is in Babylon.” The Shepherd of Hermas sees a maiden (<i>parthenos</I>), whom he recognizes as the church (<i>Visions</I> 4.2.1-12), and Tertullian [160-225] wrote of “our lady mother the Church” (<i>Ad Martyras</i>1; <i>The Ante-Nicene Fathers</I> 3:693). Similarly, Ignatius [35-98] addresses the Trallians as “elect” (<i>Trallians</I>, address), and I Peter is addressed to exiles who have been “chosen” (<i>ekletois</I>; I Peter 1:1). (<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig A. Evans</a> [b. 1952], <i>John, Hebrews–Revelation (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary)</I>, 193)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.yale.edu/divinity/news/070301_news_minear.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul S. Minear</a> (1906-2007) characterizes:
<blockquote>Akin to the image of the Messianic mother of the book of Revelation [Revelation 12:1-2] is that of the elect lady, a phrase used in II John 1:1 to designate the congregation to which the elder addressed his letter. Associated with this image of the local church as mother is the reference to its members as her children and to another congregation as her sister (II John 1:13; cf. I Peter 5:13). Blended in this phrase are two common ideas: that of the church as the elect...and that of the Messianic community as a woman bearing children. (Minear, <i>Images of the Church in the New Testament (New Testament Library)</i>, 54)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.wfu.edu/faculty/faculty-listings/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gail R. O’Day</a> (b. 1954) observes:
<blockquote>The author of II John, who identifies himself as the “elder” (II John 1:1), uses feminine imagery to speak of the church. The community to which he writes is addressed a “elect lady” (II John 1:1, 5), and the community from which the elder writes is identified as “your elect sister” (II John 1:13). Lady and sister are thus metaphors for the church...The noun “lady” (<i>kyria</I>) is the feminine form of the noun “lord” (<i>kyrios</I>). This vocabulary emphasizes the relationship between the church (lady) and its Lord. This language links II John with other New Testament writings that use feminine images for the church (e.g., Revelation 12:1-2; Ephesians 5:22-31). These images may show the value the early church placed on female leadership in the church, or they may indicate the beginning of patriarchal structures of governance in which the elder becomes “lord” over lady church. (<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carol A. Newsom</a> [b. 1950], <a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sharon H. Ringe</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1937 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacqueline E. Lapsley</a> [b. 1965], <i>Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated</i>, 623)</blockquote>
Second John’s imagery is not holistically feminine. <a href=http://faculty.albright.edu/religiousstudies/r-seesengood.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert Seesengood</a> (b. 1969) acknowledges:
<blockquote>The Johannine epistles all address questions of early Christian missionary work. They refer to the church as “the elect lady” [II John 1:1], but consistently use masculine metaphors for God and believers (II John 1:2, 5, 13; I John 2:1, 12-14). (<a href=http://juliamobrien.net/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Julia M. O’Brien</a> [b. 1958], “Masculinity and Femininity in the New Testament”,<i>The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies</I>, 532)</blockquote>
Those who view the elect lady (II John 1:1) as an individual naturally object to the title being read collectively. <a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> counters:
<blockquote>Most modern commentators suppose the phrase is used metaphorically for a church. In the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem or Zion is often personified as a woman; sometimes Israel is pictured as God’s bride—imagery occasionally picked up in the New Testament (cf. Revelation 21:2; Ephesians 5:25-28). In the <i>Shepherd of Hermas</I>, a second-century CE allegorical writing, the Church appears as a woman in a vision and is addressed by the author as <i>kyria</I> (V.I.5). But there are major differences between these images and II John’s. In Revelation, Ephesians and <i>Hermas</I> it is the new Jerusalem or the church <i>as a whole</I> which is personified, not one congregation. Yet if the ‘elect lady’ of II John 1:1 is the whole church, who is her ‘elect sister’ in II John 1:13? (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 27)</blockquote>
If “elect” lady” (II John 1:1) is a reference to the church, it is one of many. Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013) registers:
<blockquote>In addition to their most common term, <i>ekklesia</I> for the noun “church,” the New Testament writers employ many other <i>singular</I> figurative expressions to describe the <i>entire</I> church such as the following: one flock (John 10:16), one body (I Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 1:18), one new man (Ephesians 2:15), the temple of God (or of the Holy Spirit) (I Corinthians 3:16; II Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21-22; II Thessalonians 2:4), the Jerusalem that is above (Galatians 4:26), the new Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13), the light of the world (Matthew 5:14), a letter from Christ (II Corinthians 3:2-3), the olive tree (Romans 11:13-24), God’s field (I Corinthians 3:9), God’s building (I Corinthians 3:9), the chosen lady (II John 1:1), the wife (or bride) of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-31; Revelation 21:9), God’s house (Ephesians 2:19), the people of God (I Peter 2:9-10), a chosen people (I Peter 2:9), a holy nation (I Peter 2:9), a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9), the circumcision (Philippians 3:3-11), the tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16), the remnant (Romans 9:27, 11:5-7), the Israel of God (Galatians 6:15-16), God’s elect (Romans 8:33), the faithful in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:1), a new creation (II Corinthians 5:17), the kingdom of God (or of heaven) (Matthew 13:1-52), the Way (Acts 9:2, 19:9, 23, 22:4, 24:14, 22), and the brotherhood of believers (I Peter 2:17). (<a href=http://university.acton.org/faculty/dr-chad-brand STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Chad Owen Brand</a> [b. 1954] and <a href=http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/bhauthor/r-stanton-norman/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Stanton Norman</a> [b. 1963], “The Presbyterty-Led Church: Presbyterian Church Government”, <i>Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity</I>, 113)</blockquote>
In the Johannine Literature,the church is most commonly described with familial imagery. <a href=http://old.itc.edu/Faculty-Staff%20New/faculty_staff_pg3.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Rensberger</a> (b. 1948) inventories:
<blockquote>Of all the Johannine writings, only III John uses the word “church” [III John 1:6, 9, 10]. Second John uses the unusual terminology of the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] and her “elect sister” [II John 1:13] to refer to Christian congregations, which may express a sense of the church’s diving calling (<a href=http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/judith-lieu STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Judith M. Lieu</a> [b. 1951] 1986, 67); but the letter says nothing further about this. Otherwise, all three epistles plainly show the marks of a communal history, the only term they have for the community is <i>adelphoi</I>, “brothers and sisters,” used seventeen times to refer to other Christians. The metaphor of Christians as a family of God’s children is thus the primary way of speaking about the church (<a href=https://www.uni-bamberg.de/ev-relpaed/personen/lehrbeauftragte-biblische-theologie/pd-dr-dietrich-rusam/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dietrich Rusam</a> 1993, 163-65, 185-86). (Rensberger, <i>1 John, 2 John, 3 John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1951&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George L. Parsenios</a> (b. 1969) professes:
<blockquote>In II John 1:1, the Elder addresses his letter to “the Elect Lady and her children,” which interpreters generally understand to be a symbolic reference to a church and its members. Support for this interpretation comes from the close of the letter in II John 1:13, where the Elder speaks of “your Elect Sister and her children,” a phrase that clearly refers to the Elder’s own church and its members. Christians are children of God, children of their teachers, children collected within churches, and brother and sisters of one another. The use of family language to describe ecclesisastical relations raises interesting historical questions and provides valuable insight into the social relations of early Christianity, as it seems to reflect an effort to deal with the crisis of conversion to a new faith. (Parsenios, <i>First, Second, and Third John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</i>)</blockquote>
Others have viewed the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) as an artificial straw figure utilized to present a standard teaching. If this is the case the traditional reconstruction is misguided and does a disservice to Second John’s literary artistry.
<p><a href=http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/judith-lieu STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Judith M. Lieu</a> (b. 1951) develops:
<blockquote>The identity of the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] is...obscure, although “lady” (<i>kyria</I>) is a common epithet in letters, whether used of a mother or sister or of someone more exalted. The profile at first presented by II John is of a woman with her children, of their responsibility for a home to which visitors may come, and of her sister, who is well known to the author. However, this is hardly sustained throughout the letter: the lady plays no real role and the letter lacks any personal details such as characterize III John [III John 1:1, 9, 12]; the second person plural address quickly takes over from the singular (II John 1:8, 10, 12; see also II John 1:5); the children are sufficiently numerous for the author to have encountered “some” of them (II John 1:4); and that he knew only the female siblings (II John 1:13) seems unlikely. On these grounds it is frequently assumed that the “real” addressee of the letter is a church, while the “sister” and her “children” represent another community...II John is not simply an ordinary letter, as is also evidenced from the high degree of artificiality when compared to III John...Second John initially has to be read as creating its own narrative, independently of questions as the intended audience of the text; within this, the “narrative recipient,” the lady is not to be dissolved as a symbol of a “real recipient”; to seek to identify “a real recipient” who might justify the personification as an “elect lady” fails to recognize that the letter creates its own, self-contained narrative world...The anonymity of the sender is matched by that of the recipient, “the elect lady”...and is sustained throughout the letter (cf. II John 1:13). This introduces an artificial note, which could suggest that the contrast between “the elder” and “the lady” is deliberately chosen as appropriate to a letter of concern and direction; the letter format was commonly used in antiquity as a fictional device and as a vehicle for teaching, for example of a philosophical nature, although the recipient is named even in these. (Lieu, <i>I, II, & III John: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</I>, 244-45)</blockquote>
Not only is the identity of the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) contested, it is also unknown why the epistle opts not to name its recipient. C. H. Dodd [1884-1973) conjectures:
<blockquote>The possibility should perhaps not be excluded, that, in the unfavourable situation of Christianity at the time (see I John 3:13), it was judged safer, in case a document implicating the Church should fall into hostile hands, that it should appear to be a harmless letter to a friend. It is possible that the names of the writer and of the church addressed are omitted for prudential reasons—though both may have appeared...on the outside of the postal packet, according to custom. (Dodd, <i>Johannine Epistles (Moffatt Commentary)</I>, 145)</blockquote><a href=https://www.lproof.org/aboutus/BethMoore/default.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Beth Moore</a> (b. 1957) explains:
<blockquote>Many...believe that the address was more likely metaphoric to hide the identity of New Testament believers in a time of fierce persecution. If the letter fell into the wrong hands, no one could be singled out. The letter may well have been written to a church. (Moore, <i>The Beloved Disciple: Following John to the Heart of Jesus</i>, 213)</blockquote>
Regardless of whether Second John addresses an individual or a church, it is clear that the writer speaks favorably and loves its recipient (II John 1:1). Before confronting the reader with her precarious circumstances, the epistle’s opening line sets a loving tone. Second John speaks the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
<p><font color="#66CD00">How irregular is the salutation “elect lady” (II John 1:1)? To whom do you think the “elect lady” refers (II John 1:1)? What is the most natural way to read the text? If the title refers to an historical individual, who is she? Why does Second John not reveal the elect lady’s proper name? Do you know of anyone who uses the title “elect lady” today? Does anyone address you by a title? If Second John addresses a woman and her children (II John 1:1), where is the father? Why is the church commonly personified as a woman (Ephesians 5:25-27; Revelation 19:7-8)? How do you think of church; what terminology would you use to exemplify it? How does the interpretation of Second John change if it is read as having been addressed to an individual as opposed to a group?</font>
<p>While there is a natural curiosity associated with an ambiguous epithet like “elect lady” (II John 1:1), it does not alter the letter’s application. The spiritual content of the letter’s words outweigh its recipient’s identity.
<p><a href=http://www.danielakin.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daniel L. Akin</a> (b. 1957) assures:
<blockquote>Regardless of how one interprets these words [II John 1:1]...the basic application of the epistle remains unchanged. What the author would expect in belief and behavior of a lady and her children he would also expect of a local church and its members. (Akin, <i>1, 2, 3 John (New American Commentary)</I>, 220)</blockquote>
The elect lady and her children are addressed (II John 1:1). As such, a group is involved regardless. <a href=http://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8080/portal/en/persons/ruth-blanche-edwards(f660b11e-2fcb-44a9-8f76-2315a0c813a1).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth B. Edwards</a> concludes:
<blockquote>Our <i>eklektē kyria</I> may well have hosted or led a local congregation; ‘her children’, to whom the letter is also addressed [II John 1:1], were probably not her physical children, but rather members of her house church. Thus the letter is still written to a church even if the ‘elect lady’ is taken to be an individual. (Edwards, <i>The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides</I>, 29)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.swbts.edu/academics/faculty/theology/dallen/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. Allen</a> (b. 1957) interprets:
<blockquote>In II John 1:13 John signs off his letter much the way as he began it by sending greetings to them from “children” of a sister church whom he refers to as “your elect sister.” As in II John 1:1, notice that John’s use of the word “elect” does not refer to an individual election, but to corporate election as he views the local congregation as a whole to be an elect body. (Allen, <i>1–3 John: Fellowship in God's Family (Preaching the Word)</i>, 266)</blockquote>
David G. Buttrick (b. 1927) advocates:
<blockquote>Virtually everything in scripture is written to a faith-community, usually in the style of communal address. Therefore, biblical texts must be set in <i>communal</I> consciousness to be understood. Even when texts are ostensibly addressed to individuals—“Theophilus” (Luke 1:3), “Philemon”(Philemon 1:1), “The Elect Lady” (II John 1:1)—they are nonetheless addressed to individuals who share communal Christian consciousness. Thus, texts do <i>not</I> address individuals in individual self-awareness. The issue is tricky, but crucial. Because we interpret scripture individually we tend to assume that scripture speaks to individual consciousness, to an individual in existential self-awareness. Thus, our “applications” of the Bible tend to be personal in character...As interpreters we do not ask, “What does the text say to <i>me</I>?” or even “What does the text say to me as representative human being” but “What is the text saying to <i>our</I> faith-consciousness?” Most of the “you”s that show up in the New Testament texts, in the letters of Paul or in the teachings of Jesus, should rightly be translated into “Southern” as “you-alls.” (Buttrick, <i>Homiletic: Moves and Structures</I>, 276-77)</blockquote>
Regardless of who the elect lady is, Second John is written to a community, an elect community. <a href=http://theology.mercer.edu/faculty-staff/jones/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Peter Rhea Jones</a> (b. 1937) postulates:
<blockquote>One suspects from the perspective of I John regarding the world and from John 15:19 and II John 1:7 that the Elder means to infer that the believers addressed were chosen out of the world. This election does encompass receptive believing and obedience to the commandments (II John 1:5). This election is corporate, experienced in Christian community (II John 1:1, 13). (Jones, <i>1, 2 & 3 John (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 251)</blockquote>
<a href=http://luc.edu/theology/facultystaff/vonwahldeurban.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Urban C. Von Wahlde</a> (b. 1941) concurs:
<blockquote>It is not a title bestowed only on that specific community...as is indicated by the fact that in II John 1:13, the Elder will also refer to his own community as “elect.” In the Gospel (John 6:70, 13:18, 15:16, 19), the disciples are said not to have chosen Jesus but to have been chosen by him. In light of this usage, it would be particularly appropriate for members of the community to refer to themselves as “elect.” Nevertheless, it is not unusual for the wider circle of early Christians to refer to themselves or others as “chosen” (<i>eklektos</I>). Similar usage is found in I Peter 5:13 and in the salutation of Ignatius [35-98], <i> Letter to the Trallians</I>. Consequently, although I am inclined to think that choice of the title is based on Johannine usage, it cannot be proved that the derivation is particularly “Johannine.” (Von Wahlde, <i>The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three Johannine Letters (Eerdmans Critical Commentary)</I>, 225)</blockquote>
Though it is natural to glean individual insights from the New Testament writings, they are written to groups. The elect lady is one of many elect. All Christians are chosen ones.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why did the standard interpretation of the “elect lady” shift from an individual woman to a collective church? Have you ever written a (personal?) letter to a group? To whom would the title “elect lady” describe today? Does the adjective “elect” apply to you? Do you feel chosen?</font>
<blockquote>“When you lose touch with your chosenness, you expose yourself to the temptation of self-rejection, and that temptation undermines the possibility of ever growing as the Beloved...When we claim and constantly reclaim the truth of being chosen ones, we soon discover within ourselves a deep desire to reveal to others their own chosenness.” - <a href=http://www.henrinouwen.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Henri J.M. Nouwen</a> (1932-1996), <i>Life of the Beloved: Spiritual Living in a Secular World</I></blockquote>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-90612433799792736832014-11-18T15:00:00.000-08:002014-11-18T15:00:00.194-08:00The Falls of the Righteous (Proverbs 24:16)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FI9IAyNH4rA/VGqLSW4k1XI/AAAAAAAAI9Q/kI96M4UhAtQ/s1600/FallingSign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="176" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FI9IAyNH4rA/VGqLSW4k1XI/AAAAAAAAI9Q/kI96M4UhAtQ/s320/FallingSign.jpg" /></a></div><b>According to Proverbs, how many times does a righteous man fall and rise again? Seven times (Proverbs 24:16)</b>
<p>Proverbs 24:16 is a straight forward maxim which highlights the resilience of the righteous.
<blockquote>For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again,
<br>But the wicked stumble in time of calamity. (Proverbs 24:16 NASB)</blockquote>
The Message paraphrases, “No matter how many times you trip them up, God-loyal people don’t stay down long; Soon they’re up on their feet, while the wicked end up flat on their faces”.
<p><a href=http://loveandrespect.com/about-us/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Emerson Eggerichs</a> (b. 1951) internalizes:
<blockquote>Proverbs 24:16...gives me such hope. Good people are not perfect, but God says: “A righteous man [or woman] falls seven times, and rises again.” (Eggerichs, <i>The Love & Respect Experience: A Husband-Friendly Devotional that Wives Truly Love</I>, 2)</blockquote>
This proverb is attached to its predecessor: “Do not lie in wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous;/Do not destroy his resting place” (Proverbs 24:15 NASB).
<p><a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/faculty-member?id=42 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Christine R. Yoder</a> (b. 1968) connects:
<blockquote>The second proverb [Proverbs 24:16] explains why the ambushes [Proverbs 24:15] are doomed to failure. Seven times, a number that signifies completeness, the righteous will fall and get up again (Psalm 20:7-8)...By contrast, the wicked, who by “lying in wait” [Proverbs 24:15] assume that they have an upper hand, are tripped up by their own wickedness. Lack of a parallel “arise” or similar verb of recovery in Proverbs 24:16b underscores the finality of their fate. They do not get up again. (Yoder, <i>Proverbs (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries)</I>, 240-41)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.knoxseminary.edu/dr-bruce-k-waltke/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce K. Waltke</a> (b. 1930) expounds:
<blockquote>The unit’s first prohibition [Proverbs 24:15-16] cautions the disciple not to join the ranks of wicked to take away the abode of the righteous by cunning deceit and violence (Proverbs 24:15). The prohibition rests on the godly person’s faith and conviction that the righteous will recover from their fall and the wicked will finally fall through their evil and never recover from their misery. <i>For</I> signals the connection between the admonition (Proverbs 24:15) and its validation (Proverbs 24:16), a connection strengthened by the catchwords <i>righteous</I> (Proverbs 24:15a, 16a)..and <i>wicked</I> (Proverbs 24:15a, 16b)...The double prohibition uses imagery from the field of animal husbandry, that is, “pasture” and “bed for animals” (cf. Proverbs 24:15; cf. Isaiah 35:7, 65:10), and the double rationale uses the metaphor of travel (“stumble and fall”; Proverbs 27:16). The rationale entails that the wicked kill the righteous to plunder them (see Proverbs 1:10-19) and that they may not get their deserts until the end when the righteous triumphantly rises from his destruction...In sum, the rationale of Proverbs 24:16 adds to the promise of Proverbs 24:14 that before the wise/righteous enjoy an eternal future they may first be utterly ruined. It also adds the threat that the wicked are damned. Both promise and threat demand faith that the LORD stands behind this moral order (cf. Proverbs 3:5-6, 22:23, 23:11, 24:18, 21). (Waltke, <i>The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 282)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/acadprog/faculty/clifford.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard J. Clifford</a> (b. 1934) interprets:
<blockquote>The words for “house”—<i>nāweh</I> “pasture, dwelling,” and <i>rēbes</I>, “resting place” [Proverbs 24:15]—are a pair fixed in Isaiah 35:7 and Isaiah 65:10. In this saying, the ambusher rather than the ambushed is the one actually in danger, for the righteous person always (“seven times” [Proverbs 24:16]) makes a comeback. The wicked person, however, is tripped up by only one fall—perhaps the very act of ambushing. The proverb can be extended to ethics generally, where it is a sign of a righteous person to be able to rise up after a fall (Alonso Schökel [1920-1998]). (Clifford, <i>Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 215)</blockquote>
Proverbs 24:16’s wisdom is paralleled in the Psalms. <a href=http://hebrew.wisc.edu/?q=node/19 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael V. Fox</a> (b. 1940) correlates:
<blockquote>If the righteous man suffers harm—such as an encroachment on his field—he will recover, but wickedness is a dead-end road. A Wisdom Psalm states this principle theologically: “Many are the misfortunes of a righteous man, but the Lord will save them from them all” (Psalm 34:20). (Fox, <i>Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 749)</blockquote>
Proverbs 24:16 directly contrasts the falls of the righteous and the wicked. Roland Murphy (1917-2002) notes:
<blockquote>Hebrew <i>rāšā</I> <b>(wicked)</b> of the Masoretic Text is taken by the NIV as a kind of apposition; others understand it as a vocative. (Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler [b. 1952], <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</i>)</blockquote>
Though the fate of the righteous is ultimately superior to that of the wicked, their path is not necessarily clear. In fact, they may endure as many as seven falls (Proverbs 24:16). Here, the number seven is proverbial (pun intended): It indicates the potential for repeated falls.
<p><a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/ellen-davis STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ellen F. Davis</a> (b. 1950) deciphers:
<blockquote>The number seven may be a conventional round number, similar to our use of “a dozen” (see Proverbs 24:16, 26:16). (Davis, <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion)</i>, 71)</blockquote>
Roger N. Whybray (1923-1997) concurs:
<blockquote><i>Seven times</I>...means an indefinite number of times [Proverbs 24:16]. The point is that <i>the good man</I> may suffer temporary misfortune at the hands of <i>the rascal</I>, but virtue will triumph in the end. (Whybray, <i>The Book of Proverbs (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament)</I>, 140)</blockquote>
<a href=http://hebrew.wisc.edu/?q=node/19 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael V. Fox</a> (b. 1940) reveals:
<blockquote><i>Seven times</I>...<i>Even</I> seven times...is equivalent to “many” (Sa‘adia). The Syriac Ahiqar (version S2) says: “My son, the wicked falls and does not arise, while the honest man is not shaken, because God is with him” (§21) This is based on the present verse [Proverbs 24:16]. (Fox, <i>Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 750)</blockquote>
This usage of the number seven is a common biblical trope. <a href=http://huc.edu/directory/leonard-s-kravitz STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leonard S. Kravitz</a> (b. 1928) and <a href=http://joi.org/about/staff.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kerry M. Olitzky</a> (b. 1954) survey:
<blockquote>While numbers have great religious symbolism, few are given any real significance in the Bible. There are, however, a few exceptions to this. The number seven, for instance, is most prominent. It is reflected in the seven days of creation [Genesis 2:2-3], the Sabbath as the seventh day [Exodus 16:26, 20:10, 31:15, 35:2, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:14], the Sabbatical year [Exodus 23:10–11; Leviticus 25:4, 8; Nehemiah 10:31; Jeremiah 34:13-14], the Jubilee year of seven times seven [Leviticus 25:8-13], and the <i>Omer</I> cycle of seven times seven days [Leviticus 23:15-16; Deuteronomy 16:9-10]. In Jericho seven priests blew seven shofars seven times on seven days in seven circuits (Joshua 6:1ff). (Kravitz and Olitsky, <i>Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs</i>, 68)</blockquote>
Oftentimes, the righteous are frequent fallers; they are not exempt from falling consistently and perhaps even completely.
<p>The adage has a two-fold purpose (Proverbs 24:16): It encourages the righteous to remain steadfast in the face of adversity while discouraging the temptation to shortcut righteousness for temporary gains.
<p><a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> (b. 1952) considers:
<blockquote>As it in the Masoretic Text, the passage [Proverbs 24:15-16] is most naturally understood as addressed to the wicked. If so, then the proverb serves as a warning against trying to undermine the righteous on the basis of its futility. However, it might be that this is a fictional address and that the actual hearer of the proverb is the student of the sage, in which case the proverb would serve as an encouragement in the light of the attacks of the wicked. (Longman, <i>Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms)</I>, 439)</blockquote>
In the face of the facade of the wicked’s prosperity, the righteous could be tempted to circumvent their principles. <a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/duane-garrett/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Duane A. Garrett</a> (b. 1953) asserts:
<blockquote>Saying Twenty-Seven (Proverbs 24:15-16)...is a warning addressed to the evildoer to leave the righteous alone...The resilience of the good man (expressed in his getting back up seven times [Proverbs 24:16]) is such that the evil cannot win. (Garrett, <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary)</i>, 199)</blockquote>
<a href=http://hst.edu/our-community/faculty/bland/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dave L. Bland</a> (b. 1953) advises:
<blockquote><b>Do not</b> bother to bring about the downfall of the <b>righteous man’s house</b> because it will only be a waste of time [Proverbs 24:15-16]. The <b>righteous</b> are a hardy bunch. They will continually recover from adversity or temptation (<b>seven times</b>) and be even stronger (notice a different scenario in Proverbs 25:26). In contrast, <b>the wicked are brought down</b> when they face a single crisis. (Bland, <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon (College Press NIV Commentary)</i>, 217)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/allenpross STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Allen P. Ross</a> (b. 1943) understands:
<blockquote>It is futile and self-defeating to mistreat God’s people, for they survive, whereas the wicked do not [Proverbs 24:16]! The warning is against attacking the righteous; to attack them is to attack God and his program, and that will fail (Matthew 16:18). The consequence, and thus the motivation, is that if the righteous suffer misfortune any number of times (= “seven times,” Proverbs 24:16), they will rise again; for virtue triumphs in the end (R.N. Whybray [1923-1997], 140). Conversely, the wicked will not survive; without God they have no power to rise from misfortune. The point, then, is that ultimately the righteous will triumph and those who oppose them will stumble over their evil. (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>Proverbs ~ Isaiah (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</i>, 200)</blockquote>
In short, in the long run, crime doesn’t pay.
<p>Other interpreters have focused on the call to perseverance (Proverbs 24:16). As the cliché asserts, tough times don’t last but tough people do.
<p>Roland Murphy (1917-2002) characterizes:
<blockquote><b>Proverbs 24:15-16</b> [is]...an admonition with motivational rationale. The admonition warns against ruling the <b>dwelling place</b> of the <b>righteous</b> [Proverbs 14:15]. It grants that the latter can suffer repeated adversity (the proverbial <b>seven times</b> [Proverbs 24:16]), but in the long run he will prevail and the wicked will not. (Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler [b. 1952], <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</i>)</blockquote>
David Hubbard (1928-1996) professes:
<blockquote>The long-range vindication and prosperity of the wise is affirmed...here. The motivation tells us how (Proverbs 24:16). The <i>“righteous”</I> person, loyal to the Lord and His people, may come on hard times (<i>“fall”</I>) repeatedly...but each time he will <i>“rise,”</I> as the Lord, whose hand is at work though His name is not mentioned, vindicates him in due season (see the delayed timing of Proverbs 23:18, 24:14). <i>“Wicked”</I> people (the noun is plural here, but singular in Proverbs 24:15) are made to stumble (<i>“fall”</I>” in Proverbs 24:16 translates two different Hebrew words; the second <i>ka shal</I> describes stumbling over an obstacle or being tripped up; Proverbs 4:12, 19; see noun form at Proverbs 16:18) and never get up. <i>“Calamity”</I>...hits them as divine judgment and lays them low once and for all. (Hubbard, <i>Proverbs (Mastering the Old Testament)</I>, 375)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/McKenzie STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Alyce M. McKenzie</a> (b. 1955) preaches:
<blockquote>Perseverance is a crucial quality for...Christians to cultivate...because we live in a society where not all perseverance is fueled by faith in God and directed toward the good of the community...A great deal of perseverance...is fueled by the pursuit of material possessions that make for a life rich in things and poor in soul...Then there is the perseverance fueled by the desire for improving the quality of our lives in community in the best sense of the word quality: “Persistence prevails when all else fails”...The Korean proverb “Fall down seven times and get up eight” expresses the quality of tenacity for which the Korean people are renowned...Then there is the perseverance that is fueled by faith toward godly goals...Perseverance continues to build communities’ resolve and self-esteem. (McKenzie, <i>Preaching Proverbs: Wisdom for the Pulpit</I>, 143-44)</blockquote>
Though unstated, the righteous’ perseverance can surely be attributed to God. <a href=http://library.hds.harvard.edu/exhibits/hds-20th-century/toy STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Crawford H. Toy</a> (1836-1919) presumes:
<blockquote>The <i>righteous</I>, it is said, shall never be permanently cast down (Micah 7:8); the <i>wicked</I>, on the contrary, has no power to rise above misfortune — once down, he does not rise. The couplet probably refers not to the natural inspiriting power of integrity and the depressing effect of moral evil, but to divine retribution [Proverbs 24:16]. (Toy, <i>Proverbs (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 448)</blockquote>
<A HREF=http://www.eastern.edu/academics/programs/christian-studies-department/christian-studies-faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Raymond C. Van Leeuwen</a> (b. 1948) agrees:
<blockquote>These verses [Proverbs 24:15-16] form an admonition against attacking the righteous (see Proverbs 1:11, 23:10-11). Its point is in the motive clause: Although the righteous are not free from troubles, even though they fall again and again, they get up and go on (Psalm 20:7-8). The wicked, however, are brought down (literally, they stumble and fall), like the wicked in Proverbs 4:12, 16, 19 (see also Proverbs 24:17). The underlying premise is that God rewards people according to their deeds (see Proverbs 24:12, 29). (Van Luewen, <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Book of Wisdom, Sirach (New Interpreter’s Bible</I>, 211)</blockquote>
John M. Perkins (b. 1930) confesses:
<blockquote>We will stumble and fail along the way. Our purest motives and sincerest efforts will not protect us from failure. We need to mentally accept this ahead of time. We must go through the fiery trial of failure before we are able to fully accept the fact that failure “comes with the territory.” In this struggle we will confront the cultural value of success. Says <a href=http://fcsministries.org/who-we-are/>Robert D. Lupton</a> [b. 1944]: “Success is not an automatic consequence of obedience. ‘A righteous man falls seven times and rises again’ (Proverbs 24:16). Saint and sinner alike must take their lumps and go on to the next risk. But for the believer there is one guarantee. We have a dependable God who made a trustworthy commitment that no matter what happens—success or failure—He will use it for our ultimate good.” (Perkins, <i>Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development</I>, 172-73)</blockquote>
Some have imagined the divine not only walking by the side of the righteous but picking them up after their falls. <a href=http://www.jansilvious.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jan Silvious</a> (b. 1944) envisions:
<blockquote>As each of my three boys learned to walk, our hands were always there. They fell to their knees, many times, but we never let them fall on their heads or get permanently hurt. In the same way, the Lord is always there to keep us. He will not let us be cast down. “For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again” (Proverbs 24:16). (Silvious, <i>The Five-Minute Devotional: Meditations for the Busy Woman</I>, 126)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.ficm.org STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Neil T. Anderson</a> (b. 1942) and Joanne Anderson (b. 1941) encourage:
<blockquote>We probably learn more from our mistakes than we will ever learn from our successes. A mistake is only a failure when you fail to learn from it: “For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again” (Proverbs 24:16 NIV). If you make a mistake, get back up and try again and again and again. This is not a question of self-confidence. Our confidence is in God. (Anderson, <i>Overcoming Depression</I>, 75)</blockquote>
The righteous cannot fall so frequently, completely or lowly that God cannot lift them up. There is hope, even for the wicked who can repent and become counted among the righteous.
<p>Proverbs 24:16 affirms that both the righteous and wicked fall. This circumstance is a universal part of the human condition. The difference is in the result: The righteous emerge from the fall. And the determining factor is God. Proverbs agrees, you can’t keep a good man (or woman) down.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Is Proverbs 24:16 written more to deter wickedness or encourage the fallen righteous? Why is Proverbs 24:16 true: is the universe designed to self correct in this way or does God intervene? Is the resilience of the righteous the reason for the wicked’s ultimate defeat? What raises the righteous that the wicked lack? What is the correlation between righteousness and resilience; is perseverance intrinsic to Judeo-Christian faith? When have the wicked prospered while the righteous fell?</font>
<p>Implicit in Proverbs 24:16 is the recognition that the righteous are not promised sure footing: They do fall. Jesus echoes this in the Sermon on the Mount: “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45 NASB).
<p>Intrerpreters have long realized the inevitability falling. Augustine (354-430) restates:
<blockquote>The text, “For a just man shall fall seven times and shall rise again” [Proverbs 24:16], means that he will not perish, however often he falls. There is here no question of falling into sins but of afflictions leading to a lower life. CITY OF GOD 11.31. (<a href=http://www.gts.edu/index.php?option=com_workforce&view=employee&id=6&Itemid=108 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J. Robert Wright</a> [b. 1936], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon <i>(Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)</I>, 152)</blockquote>
The fall of the righteous is so common that the assurance of their triumph must be reiterated repeatedly. Tomáš Frydrych (b. 1969) realizes:
<blockquote>The premise about prosperity of the wise and destruction of the fools has to be reiterated again and again. This suggests at least indirectly that in the real world to which the sages are addressing themselves, this principle might not always be so obvious, and therefore, persistent reinforcement is required. Consider...Proverbs 1:10-13...Proverbs 10:30...Proverbs 19:10...Proverbs 24:15-16...Proverbs 25:26...These sayings, and other[s] like them, only make adequate sense if in the sages world at least occasionally those who ambush the innocent fill their pockets with loot, the righteous stagger, the wicked have the upper hand and fools live lives of luxury. Thus, there are both explicit and implicit indications that the proverbial sages were aware that the picture of the world they paint is not entirely accurate. (Frydrych, <i>Living Under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs & Qoheleth</I>, 38)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/T/Daniel-Treier STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daniel J. Treier</a> (b. 1972) analyzes:
<blockquote>The last command [Proverbs 3:11-12], regarding divine discipline, tacitly acknowledges that simplistic forms of retributive theology, according to which God makes good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, are wrong. Good people do not always enjoy good circumstances, or else this exhortation would not be necessary for such people to interpret their lives and respond rightly. Proverbs 24:16 provides even more obvious nuance about righteous suffering: “The righteous falls seven times and rises again,/but the wicked stumble in times of calamity” (ESV). So-called retribution, not always manifest in circumstantial moments, ultimately pertains to final ends. (Treier, <i>Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 25)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.multnomah.edu/bio/albert-baylis/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Albert H. Baylis</a> assures:
<blockquote>Proverbs knows there is no mechanical guarantee about these formulas. Some good people die young. You and I could both name some. The righteous have their setbacks (Proverbs 24:16). The wicked often do so well that the righteous are tempted toward envy (Proverbs 24:1-2, 23:17, 3:31). But as our own folk wisdom recognizes, those people are “living on borrowed time.” They are swimming against the tide. The odds will catch up with them. (Baylis, <i>From Creation to the Cross: Understanding the First Half of the Bible)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> (b. 1952) acknowledges:
<blockquote>The sages understood that the righteous wise would suffer in life, but they also have the endurance to withstand the attacks of life [Proverbs 24:16]. Life may beat them down, but they both have hope...because of wisdom. They see beyond the present misfortune. (Longman, <i>Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms)</I>, 439)</blockquote>
Given the seeming contradiction between Proverbs 24:16’s assertion and the present reality, many have long looked to the next life for its fulfillment.
<p>Cassiodorus (485-585) dissects:
<blockquote>A Christian is said to rise again in two senses; first, in this world when he is freed by grace from death of vices, and he continues being justified by God; in the words of the most wise Solomon, “A just man falls seven times and rises again” [Proverbs 24:16]. Second, there is the general resurrection, at which the just will attain their eternal rewards. EXPOSITIONS OF THE PSALMS 19.9. (<a href=http://www.gts.edu/index.php?option=com_workforce&view=employee&id=6&Itemid=108 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J. Robert Wright</a> [b. 1936], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon <i>(Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)</I>, 152-53)</blockquote>
<A HREF=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/milton-horne/25/712/253 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Milton P. Horne</a> (b. 1956) associates:
<blockquote>The instruction [Proverbs 24:15-16] is important because it provides insight on the nature of “future hope” that the preceding instruction mentions (Proverbs 24:14). It does not mean that the righteous will not fall, but that they will recover. Or to put it another way, the future hope for the righteous does not preclude suffering; it simply assures success and fulfillment in the long run. By comparison, the wicked is swept away. (Horne, <i>Proverbs–Ecclesiastes (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 292)</blockquote>
Though there is undoubtedly hope for justice in the next life, the Bible is also replete with examples of righteous believers who have overcome numerous falls. <a href=http://commerceanimalhospital.vetstreet.com/our_staff.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cody L. Jones</a> (b. 1949) relates:
<blockquote>Do not...raid [a] righteous man’s house. Though they fall seven times, the upright will rise again; but the wicked are overthrown by calamity (Proverbs 24:15-16). When King Chedorlaomer raided Sodom, he inadvertently raided the house of Abram by carrying off Lot [Genesis 14:12]. Abram followed and routed Chedorlaomer’s party and rescued his nephew [Genesis 14:13-16]. (Jones, <i>The Complete Guide to the Book of Proverbs</I>, 188)</blockquote>
<a href=http://drjohnphillips.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Phillips</a> (1927-2010) illustrates:
<blockquote>The classic example of Proverbs 24:15-16 is the story of David and King Saul. King Saul was the man who lay in wait “against the dwelling of the righteous” [Proverbs 24:15]. After Saul threw a javelin at David and missed, David escaped and made his way home [I Samuel 18:10-11, 19:10]...David, on the other hand, was the just man who fell seven times, only to rise up again [Proverbs 24:16]. In spite of all his faults and failings, David loved the Lord. (Phillips, <i>Exploring Proverbs, Volume Two: An Expository Commentary</I>, 275)</blockquote>
The most obvious biblical example of rising from a fall is Jesus’ rise, even from death. <a href=http://www.tdjakes.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">T.D. Jakes</a> (b. 1957) exhorts:
<blockquote>The whole theme of Christianity is one of rising again. However, you can’t rise until you fall. Now that doesn’t mean you should fall into sin. It means you should allow the resurrecting power of the Holy Ghost to operate in your life regardless of whether you have fallen into sin, discouragement, apathy, or fear. There are obstacles that can trip you as you escalate toward productivity. But it doesn’t matter what tripped you; it matters that you rise up. People who never experience these things generally are people who don’t do anything. There is a certain safety in being dormant. Nothing is won, but nothing is lost. I would rather walk on water with Jesus. I would rather nearly drown and have to be saved than play it safe and never experience the miraculous. (Jakes, <i>Can You Stand to Be Blessed?</I>, 14)</blockquote>
The righteous’ ability to rise is at the core of Christianity. The good may not win every battle but the war has been won. This proverb is both evidenced and ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ death and resurrection.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Do you find Proverbs 24:16, with its admission that the righteous may endure repeated setbacks, encouraging? Do the righteous get stronger through their falls? Are there benefits to falling, from emerging from setbacks? Are the righteous assured of rising in the present world; is there justice in this life? Are there benefits to being righteous; what is the reward of the righteous? Who or what best embodies the wisdom of Proverbs 24:16?</font>
<blockquote>I get knocked down
<br>But I get up again
<br>You’re never gonna keep me down
<br>I get knocked down
<br>But I get up again
<br>You’re never gonna keep me down
<br>– <a href=http://www.chumba.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Chumbawamba</a>, “Tubthumping”, 1997</blockquote>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-83412188234978526792014-10-29T15:00:00.000-07:002014-10-29T18:16:35.912-07:00Mary Magdalene’s Demons (Luke 8:2)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RKgECodPGuA/VFE-69SBTYI/AAAAAAAAI8g/Iz8Ru9qh6iw/s1600/MaryMagdaleneHeQi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210.667" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RKgECodPGuA/VFE-69SBTYI/AAAAAAAAI8g/Iz8Ru9qh6iw/s320/MaryMagdaleneHeQi.jpg" /></a></div><b>How many demons did Jesus cast out of Mary Magdalene? Seven (Luke 8:2)</b>
<p>Mary Magdalene is one of the most famous women in the New Testament. Despite her renown, the Bible provides very little biographical information regarding the heroine. She only becomes prominent at Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25) and resurrection (Matthew 28:1; Mark 15:47; Luke 24:10; John 20:1-18). Prior to these events, Mary Magdalene appears only once in the gospel narratives: Luke places her in Jesus’ entourage and notes that she had been plagued by seven demons. (Luke 8:2).
<p><a href=http://annafedele.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Anna Fedele</a> encapsulates:
<blockquote>The four canonical gospels do not say much about the saint: after Jesus casts seven demons out of her [Luke 8:2], she becomes one of his disciples and stays at his side during the crucifixion [Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25]. She is then the first person to see the resurrected Christ and to announce this to the other disciples [John 20:1-18]. Mary Magdalene is therefore called <i>apostola apostolorum</I>, apostle to the apostles. (Fedele, <i>Looking for Mary Magdalene: Alternative Pilgrimage and Ritual Creativity at Catholic Shrines in <a href=http://www.france.fr/en.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">France</a></I>, 7-8)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig A. Evans</a> (b. 1952) expounds:
<blockquote><b>Mary, called Magdalene</b> [Luke 8:2]...is so named because she is from the town of Magdala (possibly meaning the “city of the tower”). She figures prominently in the Gospel tradition, particularly at the crucifixion and resurrection (Matthew 27:56, 61, 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1, [Mark 16:9], Luke 24:10; John 19:25, 20:1, 11, 16, 18). Only Luke mentions that <b>seven demons had come out</b> of this woman [Luke 8:2] (the later ending affixed to the Gospel of Mark repeats the Lucan statement [Mark 16:9]). The number of demons indicates the severity of the possession (<a href=http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=858 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">E. Earle Ellis</a> [1926-2010], 128; Joseph Fitzmyer [b. 1920], 698). According to a rabbinic tradition the Angel of Death “said to his messenger, ‘Go bring me Miriam [Mary] the Women’s hairdresser!’ He went and brought him Miriam” (Babylonian Talmud <i>Hagiga</I> 4b). “Hairdresser” is <i>megaddela</I>, which could be a pun with Magdalene. The wider context of this rabbinic tradition reveals that Magdalene has been confused with Mary the mother of Jesus. (Evans, <i>Luke (New International Biblical Commentary)</I>, 123-24)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.insight.org/about/chuck-swindoll.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Charles R. Swindoll</a> (b. 1934) evaluates:
<blockquote>Mary Magdalene had been freed from demon possession (Luke 8:2). The name Magdalene may be a reference to her home region of Magdala on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, roughly three miles north of Tiberias. Church tradition often has labeled her a former prostitute, but nothing in Scripture supports that conclusion. “Mary” was [a] common name among first-century Jewish women, and no less than four have notable roles in the Gospels: the mother of Jesus [Matthew 1:16, 18, 20, 24, 2:11, 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41,46, 56, 2:5, 16, 19, 34; John 2:3-5], the sister of Lazarus [Luke 10:39, 42; John 11:1, 2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, 45, 12:3], Mary Magdalene [Matthew 27:56, 61, 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1, 9; Luke 8:2, 24:10; John 19:25, 20:1, 18], and the mother of James and Joses [Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1]. Consequently, some may have confused her with the woman who washed Jesus’ feet (Matthew 26:1-5; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8). Regardless, nothing in Scripture suggests Mary Magdalene was any different from many people Jesus had cleansed of demons, except that she followed Jesus by faith, not for selfish reasons. (Swindoll, <i>Insights on Luke</i>)</blockquote>
Mary often appears with other women and when she does, she typically receives top billing. <a href=http://www.jeanyvesleloup.eu/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jean-Yves Leloup</a> (b. 1950) examines:
<blockquote>Mary Magdalene is the only woman besides Mother Mary who is mentioned by name in all four texts, and her name, in all but one instance [John 19:25], is the first listed when there is mention of the women present at the event. (Leloup, <i>The Gospel of Mary Magdalene</i>)</blockquote>
After the resurrection narratives (Matthew 28:1; Mark 15:47; Luke 24:10; John 20:1-18), Mary departs from the biblical record. Esther A. de Boer (1959-2010) notices:
<blockquote>It is very strange that these women in Acts 1:14 should be unidentified and that Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers are mentioned, although they play no discipleship role in the gospel. One would have expected at least the name of Mary Magdalene to occur again, but this is not the case. Throughout Acts she is not mentioned; also absent is the name of any other woman mentioned in the gospel. They play no role in Luke’s story about the beginnings of the church. (<a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> [b. 1956] with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/marianne.blickenstaff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Blickenstaff</a> [b. 1959], “The Lukan Mary Magdalene”, <i>A Feminist Companion to Luke</I>, 157)</blockquote>
Despite being written out of the canonical story, Mary Magdalene appears in extra-biblical literature. <a href=https://www.mckendree.edu/directory/duane-olson.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Duane Olson</a> (b. 1959) chronicles:
<blockquote>In other noncanonical gospels, Mary Magdalene is often mentioned, but she is never identified as a prostitute or adulteress. She is often presented as engaging in dialogue with Jesus in an intelligent manner, and she appears to have an important status among the disciples. This is true, for example, in the <i>Gospel of Thomas</I> (saying 21) and the <i>Dialogue of the Savior</I>. In the <i>Gospel of Mary</I>, which is attributed to her, she has a vision of the resurrected Christ and is a teacher of the disciples, although some of the disciples do not accept her teaching. (Olson, <i>Issues in Contemporary Christian Thought: A Fortress Introduction</i>, 175)</blockquote>
Mary Magdalene first appears in the Bible when the Gospel of Luke lists her among the female patrons of Jesus (Luke 8:1-3).
<blockquote>Soon afterwards, He [Jesus] began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means. (Luke 8:1-3 NASB)</blockquote>
Jane D. Schaberg (1938-2012) and <a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sharon H. Ringe</a> (b. 1946) dissect:
<blockquote>One of the names in Luke’s list and the verb that describes the women’s activity are drawn from other Synoptic traditions. Mark 15:40-41 tells of many women looking on from afar at the crucifixion, who had followed Jesus when he was in Galilee and provided for him. Luke appears to be using this Markan verse but also have other information. A comparison of the name of women at the crucifixion and empty tomb in the four Gospels shows that the name of Mary Magdalene is constant—based on a strong, unshakable, widespread memory—and suggests that the names of others were remembered in different communities. (<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carol A. Newsom</a> [b. 1950], Ringe and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1937 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacqueline E. Lapsley</a> [b. 1965], <i>Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated</I>, 506)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jgreen/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joel B. Green</a> (b. 1956) comments:
<blockquote>Luke singles out three women of particular prominence among the several women in Jesus’ following: Mary, Joanna, and Susanna [Luke 8:2-3]. Mary is further distinguished (from the other Mary, Jesus’ mother, present earlier in the narrative [Luke 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41,46, 56, 2:5, 16, 19, 34]) as a former resident of the city of Magdala (modern Migdal; northeast of Tiberias about three miles). She is mentioned first undoubtedly because of her importance in the resurrection account (Luke 24:10). The mention of seven demons underscores the magnitude of her prior demonization [Luke 8:2]. (Green, <i>The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 320)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) adds:
<blockquote>In Luke 8:1-3, unique to Luke, the Evangelist notes the work of three women of faith. As Jesus ministers, he draws followers who come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Mary Magdalene serves after having seven demons exorcised by Jesus [Luke 8:2]. Joanna, as the wife of Herod’s steward, Cuza, gives evidence that Jesus’ message has reached even into the palace [Luke 8:3]. When these and other women come to faith, they immediately give of their resources to enable Jesus’ ministry to continue. This note is important, since the passage makes clear that those contributing to Jesus’ ministry span both gender diversity and the social scale. The pattern of grace received and ministry pursued emerges in the exemplary response of these women. Their ministry comes at two levels: personal involvement and the contribution of resources. Both levels of involvement are important to effective ministry. (Bock, <i>Luke (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 220)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/johnson.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Luke Timothy Johnson</a> (b. 1943) connects:
<blockquote>This group is particularly important [Luke 8:2-3]. They will witness Jesus’ death (Luke 23:49) and burial (Luke 23:55). Mary Magdalene and Joanna are also the first to be told of Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:10, 22). (Johnson, <i>Luke (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 131)</blockquote>
Typically, Mary maintains preeminence (Luke 8:2-3). R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) attends:
<blockquote>Luke particularizes only the case of Mary, who is called “the Magdalene” from her home town Magdala on the west shore of the Lake of Galilee [Luke 8:2]. She always stood first among the women just as Peter did among the men, and Jesus appeared first to her after his resurrection [John 20:1-18]. (Lenski, <i>The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel, 1-11</I>, 440-41)</blockquote>
Like Luke’s gospel itself, historically, most commentators have passed over this summary statement (Luke 8:1-3). <a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> (b. 1956) credits:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> [b. 1951]’s 1979 article, ‘On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples – Luke 8:1-3’...is in no small extent responsible for reintroducing gospel women to the academic mainstream. The study...was, according to his own investigation, the first treatment of Luke 8:1-3 in any scholarly journal in a century...Since Witherington’s initial publication, there has been a spate of articles on Luke 8:1-3. (Levine with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/marianne.blickenstaff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Blickenstaff</a> [b. 1959], <i>A Feminist Companion to Luke</I>, 12-13)</blockquote>
Luke 8:1-3 is actually composed of a single sentence. Esther A. de Boer (1959-2010) ruminates:
<blockquote>The long sentence construction of Luke 8:1-3 raises several questions, the first being ‘who is ministering to whom?’ The sentence, having four subjects—Jesus, the Twelve, some named women, many others unnamed—could be divided in two parts: Jesus and the Twelve on the one hand and the named and unnamed women on the other. This would imply that all the women provided for all the men. The sentence can also be interpreted as an inclusion: providing the frame are Jesus and the unnamed women, each with their own active verbs; enclosed are the Twelve and the named women, who have no active verbs of their own but are said to be ‘with him’. The unnamed women in this configuration provide for Jesus and the Twelve as well as for Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna...Luke 8:1-3 thus allows two quite different answers to the question of who provides for whom: either all the women provide for all the men, or the many unnamed women provide for Jesus, the Twelve, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna. The latter interpretation would mean that, according to Luke, the women following Jesus did not all have the same role. According to this interpretation, Luke 8:1-3 itself contradicts the assumption that Luke restricts women to typical gender roles. (<a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> [b. 1956] with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/marianne.blickenstaff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Blickenstaff</a> [b. 1959], “The Lukan Mary Magdalene”, <i>A Feminist Companion to Luke</I>, 144)</blockquote>
I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) assures:
<blockquote>The syntax is loose, but the meaning is clear. They have been healed (θεραπεύω, Luke 4:23; <i>et al.</I>; here pluperfect) from evil spirits (Luke 7:21) and diseases (Luke 5:15). Three receive special mention. First there was Mary from Magdala (cf. Luke 24:10; Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1 parallel Matthew 27:56, 61, 28:1; John 19:25, 20:1, 18; cf. Mark 16:9). Μαγδαλά, modern Migdal, a town which lay about three miles from Tiberias on the west side of the Lake of Galilee; it is probably to be identified with the village of Tarichaea mentioned frequently by Josephus [37-100], and its name is to be derived from <i>migdal</I> (a watch tower) (Jack Finegan [1908-2000], No. 54; Clemens Kopp [1886-1967], 190-97). Mary receives special mention at the head of the list because of the firm tradition that she occupied a prominent place among the witnesses of the resurrection on Easter morning [Matthew 28:1; Mark 15:47; Luke 24:10; John 20:1-18]. She had also been cured of possession by seven demons [Luke 8:2], possibly recurrences of mental disorder (J. Alexander Findlay [1880-1961], 1040); the round number expresses the worst possible state of demonic disorder (cf. Luke 11:26 parallel Matthew 12:45; Karl Heinrich Rengstorf [1903-1992], <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</i> II, 630ff.). The verb ἐξέρχομαι [“had been healed of”, Luke 8:2 NASB] is used to express the passive of ἐκβάλλω, a construction which is found in Koine Greek (James Hope Moulton [1863-1917], Wilbert Francis Howard [1880-1952] and Nigel Turner [b. 1916] III, 53, 292). The way in which Mary is introduced here makes it clear that neither Luke nor his source identified her with the sinful woman in the preceding story [Luke 7:36-50]; demon possession and sinfulness are to be carefully distinguished. (Marshall, <i>The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 316)</blockquote>
Though Luke presents the information impassively (Luke 8:1-3), Jesus’ close association with women is highly irregular. <a href=http://religion.sdsu.edu/faculty_staff.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Gillman</a> (b. 1948) pronounces:
<blockquote>What is highly unconventional, even scandalous, is that these women, at least one of whom was married [Joanna, Luke 8:3], were in public as traveling companions of a male itinerant preacher [Luke 8:1-3]. Normally, the role of women was to manage and work within the household, while the men were expected to handle public matters outside the home. Apart from the home a woman was not to be seen in the presence of man unless accompanied by a male from her family. This is why in John’s Gospel the disciples of Jesus were amazed that he was interacting with a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4:27). (Gillman, <i>Luke: Stories of Joy and Salvation</I>, 80)</blockquote>
<a href=http://benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) contextualizes:
<blockquote>Luke 8:1-3 stands in contrast to its historical context in rabbinic Judaism. We know women were allowed to hear the word of God in the synagogue but they were never disciples of a rabbi unless their husband or master was a rabbi willing to teach them. Though a woman might be taught certain negative precepts of the Law out of necessity, this did not mean they would be taught rabbinic explanations of the Torah. It was not uncommon for women to support rabbis and their disciples out of their own money, property, or foodstuffs. But for her to leave home and travel with a rabbi was not only unheard of, it was scandalous. Even more scandalous was the fact that women, both respectable and not, were among Jesus’ traveling companions. Yet it was an intended part of his ministry that women be witnesses from the earliest part of his Galilean ministry until his death, and benefit from his teaching and healing. This involved their traveling with him so they would understand and be prepared for the significance of his resurrection when they were called upon to be the last at the cross, first at the tomb, and first to bear witness to the resurrection (Luke 23:55-24:11). (<a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> [b. 1956] with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/marianne.blickenstaff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Blickenstaff</a> [b. 1959], “On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples—Luke 8:1-3”, <i>A Feminist Companion to Luke</I>, 134-35)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce J. Malina</a> (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) support:
<blockquote>Travel for other than conventional reasons (feasts, visiting family, business) was considered deviant. Women leaving behind family responsibilities would have been considerably deviant, arousing suspicions of illicit sexual conduct. Since the women specified are all said to have been healed by Jesus [Luke 8:2-3], they could have returned to their proper places in their own communities. The fact that they travel with Jesus and provide support implies reciprocity: paying off the debt incurred when they were healed. It may also imply that they were widows who now see the surrogate family as taking precedence over biological family. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, <i>Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels</I>, 257)</blockquote>
Jack Dean Kingsbury (b. 1934) concurs:
<blockquote>Altogether striking is Luke’s notation that Jesus is accompanied not simply by the twelve, but by many women disciples [Luke 8:1-3]...Historically, in fact, Jewish rabbis did not have women as disciples, and for a teacher to travel with women was scandalous. Accordingly, in that Jesus not only has women as disciples but is also accompanied by them, Luke presents him as removing social barriers and fashioning a community in which membership is not determined by gender. Moreover, by making mention of women disciples in this first phase of Jesus’ ministry, Luke emphasizes that women, too, are among the “Galileans” Jesus calls to discipleship and that they, too, are eye- and ear-witnesses of his ministry. On a related noted, Luke furthermore prepares the reader for the significant role that women disciples will play at the end of his gospel story: They will be “last at the cross, first at the tomb” (Luke 23:49, 24:8). More conventionally, Luke’s statement that the women disciples support Jesus and the twelve from their means points to a form of service that women, as well as men, were known in the ancient world to perform (Luke 8:3). (Kingsbury, <i>Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples</I>, 114)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bloomsbury.com/author/kyoung-jin-kim STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kyoung-Jin Kim</a> annotates:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> [b. 1951] (<i>Women in the Ministry of Jesus</I> [<a href=https://www.cambridge.gov.uk STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cambridge</a>: <a href=http://www.cambridge.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cambridge University Press</a>, 1984], p. 117), comments: ‘For a Jewish women to leave home and travel with a rabbi was not only unheard of, it was scandalous,’ Cf. Eduard Schweizer [1913-2006], <i>The Good News according to Luke</I>, p. 142; C.F. Evans [1909-2012], <i>Saint Luke</I>, p. 366. But Josef Ernst [1926-2012]’s suggestion in this respect may explain Jesus’ behaviour: ‘Jesus setzt sich über derartige tiefsitzende Vorurteile unbekümmert hinweg (Luke 7:36-50, 10:38-42; Mark 14:3-9; John 11:1-6, 17-27, 38-33a, 39ff); er macht aus seiner Haltung kein Programm, aber es werden “Anstöße” gegeben, die weiterwirken und trotz gelegentlicher konservativer Tendenzen in der späteren Verkündigung (vgl. I Corinthians 11:7-16, 14:34ff; Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22; I Timothy 2:10-15) neue Orientierungsdaten gesetzt haben’ (Ernst, <i>Das Evangelium nach Lukas</I> [<a href=http://www.regensburg.de/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Regensburg</a>: <a href=http://www.verlag-pustet.de/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Friedrich Pustet Regensburg</a>, 1976], p. 262). Johan Albrecht Bengel [1687-1752] (<i>Gnomon of the New Testament</I>, II, p.78), Walter Grundmann [1906-1976] (<i>Das Evangelium nach Lukas</I>, p. 174) and Witherington (<i>Women in the Ministry of Jesus</I>, p. 118) also mention this implication. Cf. Leon Morris, <i>The Gospel according to St. Luke</I>, p. 150. (Kim, <i>Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke’s Theology</I>, 103-04)</blockquote>
Within the context of Luke’s Gospel, which features women prominently, Jesus’ close association with females is not as aberrant. <a href=http://richardbauckham.co.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard Bauckham</a> (b. 1946) compares:
<blockquote>Unlike Matthew and Mark, where it comes as something of a surprise to the reader to learn during the passion narrative, that many women had accompanied Jesus from Galilee and had ‘provided’ for him (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41), Luke makes clear that these women disciples were constant companions of Jesus from an early stage of the Galilean ministry [Luke 8:2-3]. (Bauckham, <i>Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels</I>, 112-13)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-neale/45/77a/b87 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David A. Neale</a> informs:
<blockquote>Women play prominent roles in Luke. Elizabeth and Mary dominate the infancy and adolescent narratives of the first three chapters (Elizabeth in Luke 1:5-7, 13, 24-25, 36, 40-45, 56-61; Mary in Luke 1:26-56; Anna in Luke 2:36-38). Chapter 1 of Luke is “gynocentric” [Luke 1:1-80] (<a href=http://richardbauckham.co.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard Bauckham</a> [b. 1946] 2002, 47-76). Later in Luke, the sinful woman and the widow of Nain are prominent figures in the story (Luke 7:11-17, 36-50). Now the women of Galilee assume a key supporting role for Jesus’ itinerant ministry [Luke 8:1-3]...Luke is one of the most egalitarian of all the biblical writers. His representation of women, if not a complete deconstruction of patriarchy as a foundation of religious belief, is at least a marked equalization of the sexes as participants in the new community. More than simply egalitarian, Luke’s story establishes women as heroines of Jesus’ ministry. (Neale, <i>Luke 1-9: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary)</I>, 182-83)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Vernon K. Robbins</a> (b. 1939) echoes:
<blockquote>We are told of a large number of females in the adult world of Luke-Acts (Moses I. Finley [1912-1986] 1969). Elizabeth and Mary have prominent roles in the setting of the birth and infancy of John and Jesus (Luke 1:24-2:35). The prophetess Anna, sees Jesus and praises God for the redemption of Israel (Luke 2:36-38). Then throughout Luke, the narrator either refers to or presents a significant number of named and unnamed women: Herodias (Luke 3:19); a widow of Zarephath (Luke 4:26); Simon’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:38); a widow (Luke 7:13); a woman of the city (Luke 7:37-50); Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna (Luke 8:3); Jesus’ mother (Luke 8:19-20); Martha and her sister Mary (Luke 10:38-42); an unnamed woman (Luke 11:27-28); the queen of the South (Luke 11:31); a woman with an eighteen-year infirmity (Luke 13:11-13); Lot’s wife (Luke 17:32); a widow (Luke 18:1-8); a poor widow (Luke 21:1-4); a maid (Luke 22:56-57); a great multitude of women (Luke 23:27-31); and women from Galilee (Luke 23:49, 55,24:10). (<a href=http://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jerome H. Neyrey</a> [b. 1940], “The Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke-Acts”, <i>The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation</I>, 316)</blockquote>
The summary statement including the women marks a significant milestone (Luke 8:1-3). <a href=http://www.ctu.edu/academics/barbara-e-reid-op STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barbara E. Reid</a> (b. 1953) presents:
<blockquote>With these brief lines [Luke 8:1-3], unique to Luke, we have the first reference to women who accompanied Jesus and partook in his mission. Unlike “the Twelve” (Luke 6:12-16, 9:1-6), there is no narrative of the women’s call to become disciples nor of their being sent on mission. There is no record of how they first came to know Jesus. All that is preserved is that some of them have been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, presumably by Jesus, which leads them to support his mission. (Reid, <i>Choosing the Better Part?: Women in the Gospel of Luke</I>, 124-25)</blockquote>
The passage complies to a pattern in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 8:1-3). <a href=http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Henry Wansbrough</a> (b. 1934) asserts:
<blockquote>This [Luke 8:1-3] is another instance of Luke’s quite deliberately pairing up women with men. In Christianity women have equal standing with men. The subjects of miraculous cures by Jesus, and later by the apostles in the early chapters of Acts, are equally women and men. Women just as much as men receive the divine message and call; indeed in the parallel story of Zechariah and Mary [Luke 1:5-25, 26-38], Mary is the clear winner! Parables are about women as well as men: a man loses his sheep [Luke 15:3-7], a woman loses her coin [Luke 15:8-10]. In the early community of Jerusalem women are constantly mentioned and brought into prominence. Women as well as men are inspired by the Spirit to prophesy. As Paul journeys round, women are often the leaders of the group or community who receive him. (This is reflected in the greetings at the end of Paul’s letters, especially to the Romans [Romans 16:1-27]. There women stand at the head of the household in which the Christians meet for worship. Paul even calls a woman, Junia or Julia, an apostle [Romans 16:7]. At Ephesus both Priscilla and Aquila, a woman and a man, instruct the teacher Apollos [Acts 18:26]...Particularly in the Jewish world, but also in the Hellenistic, this would have been a striking novelty. (Wansbrough, <i>Luke: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer (Daily Bible Commentary)</I>, 70-71)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) tantalizes:
<blockquote>Hans Conzelmann [1915-1989], <i>The Theology of St. Luke</I>, pp. 47-48, makes the interesting comment ‘it is possible that by this emphasis on the women he [Luke] forestalls those (claims) of Mary. The Galilean women and Mary seem to stand in a similar relation to one another as the Twelve and the Lord’s brethren.’ (<a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> [b. 1956] with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/marianne.blickenstaff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Blickenstaff</a> [b. 1959], <i>A Feminist Companion to Luke</I>, 134)</blockquote>
Jesus’ inclusion of women is indicative of his nondiscriminatory nature. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) characterizes:
<blockquote>If Jesus is presented as the friend of sinners, He is also in Luke the One who cares especially for women. The significance of this may easily escape the modern reader to whom the equality of women with men, at least in the majority of countries, is normal experience. In the ancient world, however, it was otherwise, and it was not uncommon for women to be despised. Luke has two stories peculiar to his Gospel in which Jesus brings forgiveness and healing to women (Luke 7:36-50, 13:10-17). He produces the story of Mary and Martha serving Jesus (Luke 10:38-42), and of the concern of Jesus for the widow of Nain in the loss of her son (Luke 7:11-17). It is he who tells us of Jesus’ cure of Mary Magdalene from demon possession (Luke 8:2) and especially emphasizes the place of the women who helped Jesus in His travels (Luke 8:1-3). Luke alone has the story of the women who wept for Jesus on His way to Calvary (Luke 23:27-31). (Marshall, <i>Luke: Historian & Theologian (New Testament Profiles)</I>, 139-40)</blockquote>
One of these women’s primary functions is that of patronage (Luke 8:3). Mary R. Thompson (b. 1928) notes:
<blockquote>The words translated “out of their resources” mean literally, “of their property” [Luke 8:3]. Obviously, these women were identified as donors to the work of Jesus and his followers. Richard A. Horsley [b. 1939] mentions two examples of inscriptional evidence that show women as principal donors to the synagogue and mentions that many other similar inscriptions exist. <a href=http://people.brandeis.edu/~brooten/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bernadette J. Brooten</a> [b. 1951] lists forty-three such inscriptions. (Thompson, <i>Mary of Magdala: What <a href=http://www.danbrown.com/the-davinci-code/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The <a href=http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/davinci/>Da Vinci Code</a> Misses</a></I>, 96)</blockquote>
This practice was not irregular. <a href=http://www.zondervan.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=Walter+L.+Liefeld STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter L. Liefeld</a> (b. 1927) briefs:
<blockquote>It was not uncommon for ancient itinerant cult leaders, fortune-tellers, and their kind to solicit the financial support of wealthy women (Lucian [125-180, <i>Alexander the False Prophet</I> 6; cf. II Timothy 3:6-7). In this case, however, it is in a Jewish, not a pagan, culture: and the relationship is morally pure. (<a href=http://www.talbot.edu/ce20/educators/protestant/frank_gaebelein/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frank E. Gaebelein</a> [1899-1983], <i>Matthew, Mark, Luke (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 905)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bloomsbury.com/author/kyoung-jin-kim STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kyoung-Jin Kim</a> presumes:
<blockquote>Luke records a unique pericope which shows brilliantly how the needs of the wandering Preacher and his disciples were met during their mission journey [Luke 8:1-3]...What is revealed in this story is, however, that although they followed Jesus personally (compare Luke 23:49, 54, 24:10), they did still possess private possessions at their disposal: they did not forsake possessions as completely as the itinerant disciples, while travelling with them. Instead of this, they made use of material possessions of their own for the benefit of Jesus and his disciples who left πάντα [“all”] to preach the Kingdom of God [Matthew 19:27; Mark 10:28; Luke 18:28]. This enabled the wandering group to concentrate on their mission without being distracted by having to support themselves. (Kim, <i>Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke’s Theology</I>, 103-04)</blockquote>
Jonathan Marshall (b. 1978) posits:
<blockquote>Probably the most likely source, and definitely the most explicit, through which Jesus learned of benefaction and/or <i>patrocinium</I> would be two of the women mentioned in Luke 8:1-3 who financially supported his ministry. Mary and Joanna were women of means whose financial and political connections probably helped Jesus to become familiar with “the Herodian sphere of influence.” As Tiberias developed into an economic hub, Magdala (Tarichaeae) likely adjusted its fishing industry to suit a growing need. Mary probably earned her nickname while traveling, since one is less likely to be known by city of origin within that city. Marianne Sawicki [b. 1950] suggests that this was business travel undertaken as Magdala increased its lake-related industries in connection with the construction of Tiberias. Mary may have met Joanna while traveling to Tiberias where Joanna resided. Joanna was probably from Tiberias since her husband served Antipas who moved his capital to the new city [Luke 8:3]. Whether Sawicki’s recreation of this relationship’s beginnings stands or fails is not the most important issue. In regard to Mary it is more important that she traveled (earning the nickname) and earned enough money to support Jesus. (Marshall, <i>Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke</I>, 180)</blockquote>
It is within this context of patronage that Mary Magdalene first appears in the Bible (Luke 8:2). Contrary to the norms of the period, Mary is identified not by her pedigree but by her place of origin (Luke 8:2).
<p><a href=http://bookstore.wau.org/contributorinfo.cfm?ContribID=823 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George Martin</a> (b. 1939) infers:
<blockquote>Married women were often identified in terms of their husbands (“Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza”—Luke 8:3), but Mary is identified with the town of Magdala [Luke 8:2]. This likely indicates she is not married. It might also indicate that she was prominently involved in the dominant industry of Magdala, preserving and selling fish. Some merchants were women: food containers found in the storerooms of Masada, Herod the Great [74-4 BCE]’s fortress by the Dead Sea, name three women among the suppliers. Mary of Magdala was in any case apparently a women of some means (see Luke 8:3). (Martin, <i>Bringing the Gospel of Luke to Life: Insight and Inspiration (Opening the Scriptures)</I>, 215)</blockquote>
<a href=http://richardbauckham.co.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard Bauckham</a> (b. 1946) counters:
<blockquote>Mary Magdalene did need to be distinguished from other Marys, but if she had left a husband who was not a disciple of Jesus he would not have been mentioned because such relationships no longer had defining value among Jesus’ disciples (cf. Mark 3:31-35; Luke 9:59-60, 11:27-28, 12:53, 14:26, 18:28-30). That she is named from her town of origin cannot in itself tell us she had no husband. That she had been possessed by seven demons is more suggestive [Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2]; such a woman might well never have married or have been rejected or divorced by a husband...Her state of demon possession could have prevented marriage or led to her being divorced; but <a href=http://www.research.deusto.es/cs/Satellite/deustoresearch/es/centros-equipos-e-investigadores/equipos-de-investigacion/157/investigador STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carmen Bernabé Ubieta</a> [b. 1957], “Mary Magdalene and the Seven Demons in Social-Scientific Perspective,” in Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger [b. 1954], editor, <i>Tranformative Encounters: Jesus & Women Re-viewed</I>, 221, thinks the demon possession could have been the result of her being widowed or divorced: “The symptoms of possession in such a society see, to indicate a feeling of inadequacy, and at the same time a mute ineffective protest.” (Bauckham, <i>Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels</I>, 119, 134)</blockquote>
Instead of being connected to a man, Mary Magdalene is associated with her hometown, presumably Magdala, a locale in Galilee (Luke 8:2). <a href=http://drjohnphillips.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Phillips</a> (1927-2010) speculates:
<blockquote>Of these three [Luke 8:1-3], we know Mary Magdalene best. She seems to have come from Magdala, a village on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. That village was noted for its dye works, wooden goods, and trade in the pigeons and doves needed for the sacrificial offerings as required under the Mosaic Law. Magdala, moreover, was also known for its moral corruption. Mary grew up in that place and fell prey to evil spirits. Her case was hopeless—until Jesus came and set her free. She became the Lord’s devoted follower. (Phillips, <i>Exploring the Gospel of Luke: An Expository Commentary</I>, 130-31)</blockquote>
Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) describes:
<blockquote>The town had a reputation for opulence and immorality. According to <i>y. Ta’anit 4</I>, 69c, “Magdala was destroyed because of prostitution (<i>znut</I>)”; according to <i>Midrash Ekha 2,2</I>, 4, because of the profound corruption of its inhabitants. Adolf Neubauer [1831-1907] comments illogically that the corruption “trouve une confirmation partielle et tres-curieuse dans l’episode de la pecheresse des Evangiles, ‘Maria Magdalena.’” So strong is the Magdalene’s legend that some have suggested that “Mary the Magdalene” might be the equivalent of “Mary the Harlot,” since “by the Jews, the word Magdala was used to denote a person with plaited or twisted hair, a practice then much in use among women of loose character.” Since the Aramaic for hairdresser is <i>megaddlela</I>, some sort of pun may have been regarded as disreputable. (Schaberg, <i>The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament</I>, 55)</blockquote>
Mary Magdalene further stands out as one from whom seven demons have been expelled (Luke 8:2). <a href=http://www.whitbyforum.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carolyn Custis James</a> (b. 1948) submits:
<blockquote>The Bible introduces her as “Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out” (Luke 8:2). There’s a whole lot of history packed into that one simple statement. This dark piece of Mary’s past distinguishes her from the other Marys in the New Testament and reveals the truth about her background, making her rise to prominence among Jesus’ followers all the more remarkable. (James, <i>Lost Women of the Bible: Finding Strength & Significance Through Their Stories</I>, 184)</blockquote>
Mary has been plagued by seven “demons” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “devils” (KJV) (Luke 8:2). Marguerite Porete (1250-1310) rendered this phrase as “seven enemies”. The disputed longer ending to the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) corroborates the tradition that at one time Mary had seven demons (Mark 16:9).
<p><a href=http://www.univ.ox.ac.uk/univ-people/revd-dr-andrew-gregory STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andrew Gregory</a> (b. 1971) critiques:
<blockquote>[Regarding] the question of whether the <i>Longer Ending of Mark</i> made use of a single-tradition at Luke 8:2b, which refers to Mary Magdalene from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons [Mark 16:9]...Joseph Hug [b. 1946] points to the different verbs employed in the identification of Mary by reference to her healing in Luke 8:2b (ἐξεληλύθει) and in Mark 16:9 (ἐκβεβλήκει), and he argues that this difference means that the author of the <i>Longer Ending of Mark</I> drew on tradition independent of Luke 8:2b for his reference to Mary. If we assume that such traditions were available and do not assume that the author of the <i>Longer Ending of Mark</I> must have drawn on <i>Luke</I>, then this conclusion seems reasonable. <a hre=https://sites.google.com/a/slu.edu/james-kelhoffer/short-bio STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James A. Kelhoffer</a> [b. 1970], by contrast, who sees the survival of such tradition as unlikely, takes another view. He argues that the author of the <i>Longer Ending of Mark</I> did draw on Luke 8:2b, but that he altered the verb of exorcism in order to match it with the verb used in Mark 16:17. ἐκβάλλω, not ἐξέρχομαι, is the verb that is preferred by the author of <i>Mark</I>, whose style the author of the <i>Longer Ending of Mark</I> imitates here. On the question of the form of Mary’s name, he argues that he altered the distinctive Lukan form of Mary’s name in order to standardise the spelling with the form used in Mark 16:1 and elsewhere in the gospel tradition. This too is a reasonable argument if we accept Kelhoffer’s belief that the author of the <i>Longer Ending of Mark</I> consciously draws only on the fourfold Gospel. (Gregory, <i>The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus [130-202]: Looking for Luke in the Second Century</I>, 88-89)</blockquote>
Demons appear frequently in the New Testament, particularly during the life of Jesus. Carla Ricci (b. 1954) surveys:
<blockquote>In the New Testament the word δαίμων occurs once (Matthew 8:31) and δαιμόνιον sixty-three times. The elements of demonology present in the New Testament stem from Judaism and the Old Testament, though they are less obvious in the New than in the Old. <a href=http://www.gruenewaldverlag.de/meinrad-limbeck-a-636.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Meinrad Limbeck</a> [b. 1934] makes the interesting point that, “The problem of human motives for speaking about the devil is shown at its most acute in serious reflection on Jesus’ words or silence about the devil...but the passages that deal with Satan generally reveal a formation by the proto-Christian community or one or another Evangelist. (Ricci, <i>Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus</I>, 133)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/?s=Trent+Butler#related STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Trent C. Butler</a> (b. 1941) introduces:
<blockquote>The New Testament assumes that demonic powers are active in the world. It gives little information about their origin or nature, concentrating on their power to control people and their lack of power in the face of Jesus’ power. Eight major episodes illustrate the conflict between demonic powers (also called evil or unclean spirits and angels). Satan tempted Jesus (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). Jesus enabled a demon-possessed mute to speak (Matthew 12:22-23; Luke 11:14). Jesus healed the demon-possessed daughter of a Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:22-28; Mark 7:24-30). An evil spirit was exorcised from a man in a Capernaum synagogue (Mark 1:23-27; Luke 4:31-37). Jesus sent the legions of demons away from a man among the Gerasenes (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-37). Jesus healed a boy with epileptic seizures caused by a demon (Matthew 17:14-20; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43). Jesus silenced the demons (Matthew 8:16; Mark 1:32-35; Luke 4:40-41). (Butler, <i>Luke (Holman New Testament Commentary)</I>, 134)</blockquote>
Carla Ricci (b. 1954) traces:
<blockquote>The demonological concept...has its roots in Mesopotamia: “the evils of life that were not due to great natural catastrophes were attributed to the wicked influence of demons.” This conception influenced the Hebrews and spread into the Greek world, where popular belief saw demons as intermediate beings between the gods and human beings and tried to interfere in their doings through magic. The concept attached to the word “demon” underwent an evolution among the Greeks, starting from a generic divine power and moving to these intermediate personal beings, messengers between gods and humans or supervisors of humans, and under the influence of manifestations close to animism – magic, exorcism – was drawn into cultic practices. “In many philosophical systems, demons are beings who ‘possess’ human beings. Certain abnormal events are attributed to the ‘divinity’ that inhabited the body, as we can read in Hippocrates [460-370 BCE] and still more in the tragedians...More diffuse, but nevertheless still recognizable, is the conviction that particular diseases were to be attributed to certain spirits...those that we would call ‘internal diseases,’ diseases, that is, whose natural causes the ancients were unable to discover, unlike, for example, a wound.” (Ricci, <i>Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus</I>, 132-33)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.craddocksermons.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fred B. Craddock</a> (b. 1928) assesses:
<blockquote>Luke joins Matthew and Mark (no exorcisms occur in the Fourth Gospel) in reflecting the widespread belief in demons (evil spirits) and the power of Jesus over them. Belief in demons was not native to Judaism and therefore entered through contact with other cultures. Demons were said to inhabit deserts, large bodies of water, the air, and the subterranean regions. When they entered a person they were considered to be the cause of blindness, muteness, and all kinds of physical problems as well as mental disorders. Matthew distinguished between demoniacs and epileptics (Matthew 4:24), “epileptic” being a translation of the word literally meaning “moonstruck” (“lunatic”). That the moon and the stars adversely affected human conditions was a popular belief too. We should not generalize too broadly, thinking that all people in Jesus’ time believed in demons or that all physical and mental maladies were due to demons. People in that time and place were not unlike those of other times and places in experiencing a great deal of hostility in the universe and in having to deal with forces hidden in mystery, lying outside the avenues of cause and effect. What is important to keep in mind is that in the Gospels the influence of demons is physical, not moral. This distinction is important. For example, we will meet Mary Magdalene in Luke 8:2, of whom it is said Jesus exorcised seven demons from her. It is erroneous to assume that she was an immoral woman, as is so often portrayed. (Craddock, <i>Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 65-66)</blockquote>
Some critics have concluded that Luke presents women as being more susceptible to demons than men. <a href=http://corner.acu.edu.au/research_supervision/framework/browse.php?srperid=179 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Elizabeth Dowling</a> argues:
<blockquote>Luke’s penchant for characterising women as demon possessed is at its peak here [Luke 8:2]. Mary Magdalene is not connected with demons in Mark’s Gospel nor anywhere else in the Second Testament. <a href=https://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce J. Malina</a> [b. 1933] and <a href=http://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jerome H. Neyrey</a> [b. 1940] argue that, in the first-century Mediterranean world, the label of demon-possession may have been given to those who exhibited deviant behaviour and that physical mobility could be one reason to incur such a label. This suggests that the women may have been given a label of demon-possession because of their itinerant activity. <a href=http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/ewai003 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Elaine Wainwright</a> [b. 1948] identifies examples in Roman literature of labels of demon-possession being given to healers and argues that the women in Luke 8:1-3 may also have been healers. Either way, such labels are given as an attempt to control behaviour considered deviant. Luke does not link the male itinerant followers of Jesus with demon-possession but seems to add this identification to the women’s description as an attempt to control and marginalise their roles. The assertion that these women have been healed [Luke 8:2] may indicate that these women ‘are no longer considered a threat to the community’. (<a href=http://corner.acu.edu.au/research_supervision/framework/browse.php?srperid=89 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David C. Sim</a> and <a href=http://corner.acu.edu.au/research_supervision/framework/browse.php?srperid=137 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pauline Allen</a> [b. 1948], “Monitoring Women’s Roles: Luke’s Response to a Crisis of Acceptability in the Roman Empire”, <i>Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature: Thematic Studies from the Centre for Early Christian Studies</I>, 88-89)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/frances_taylor_gench/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frances Taylor Gench</a> (b. 1956) inquires:
<blockquote>Perhaps Luke is more likely to see women than men as objects of demonic possession. Joanna Dewey [b. 1936] argues this point, noting that Mark and Matthew include only one such female character (the Syrophoenician/Canaanite’s daughter in Mark 7:24-30/Matthew 15:21-28). Luke, however, unlike Mark and Matthew, attributes Simon’s mother-in-law’s fever to an evil spirit (Luke 4:39), adds the story of the bent women who is Satan-bound (Luke 13:10-17), and describes the women following Jesus as formerly demon-possessed [Luke 8:1-2]...Moreover, in his redaction of Mark and Q material and in his own special material, the evangelist Luke adds no additional references to males possessed of demons. Dewey speculates “that this is part of Luke’s general pattern of rendering women visible in his narrative, but at the same time restricting them to subordinate roles. It is one of his ways of discrediting the authority of women” (Dewey, “Jesus’ Healings of Women: Conformity and Non-Conformity to Dominant Values as Clues for Historical Reconstruction,” in <I><a href=http://www.sbl-site.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Society of Biblical Literature</a> 1993 Seminar Papers 32</I>, editor Eugene H. Lovering Jr. [b. 1952] [<a href=http://www.atlantaga.gov/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Atlanta</a>: <a href=http://www.americanscholarspress.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Scholars</a>, 1993], 181). However, I am not as certain of this point, as Luke does retain stories in the tradition that present men as objects of demonic possession (Luke 4:31-37, 40-41, 6:17-19, 7:21, 8:26-39, 9:37-43). Thus, perhaps by increasing the number of stories in which women suffer demonic affliction, he seeks to make women equally visible as objects of possession. (Gench, <i>Back to the Well: Women's Encounters with Jesus in the Gospels</I>, 180)</blockquote>
A rationale existed which would explain Luke’s alleged bias. Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) explicates:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.ruthpadel.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth Padel</a> [b. 1946] notes that in early Greek thought, because a female body had more openings than a male’s, the female was considered to be more permeable, and so women more susceptible, to the entrance of spirits. Even if this conceptuality may be “nowhere explicitly present in early Christianity...nonetheless, the continued emphasis in other texts on the sexual purity or impurity of women prophets may carry this conceptually subliminally.” (Schaberg, <i>The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament</I>, 77)</blockquote>
For centuries interpreters have attempted to explain demons as being something other than external evil forces. This is natural as the symptoms of contemporary illnesses and ancient demon possession are identical.
<p>Carla Ricci (b. 1954) relays:
<blockquote>Jean Starobinski [b. 1920]...has an interesting observation on the interpretive aspects of possession: “The most widely held conception among historians of science is that cases of demonic possession provide us with a good example of how a natural phenomenon comes to have a cultural interpretation. Demoniacs, it is said, were individuals who presented alarming symptoms – such as we see today in epileptics, spastics or schizophrenics. Physical disorder, an evident fact, is given meaning through the interpretive tools available to the language of time (or a civilization). The object that needs to be interpreted is violence, shaking, shrieking. The interpretive instrument, in the first century, was the concept of demonic possession.” Starobinski goes on to point to a circularity in the interpretive process, by which what starts off as an interpretation – demonic possession – “becomes in turn a datum offered to the interpretation given...One can in fact hold that the ‘world view’ in Jesus’ time, and still more in the evangelists’ time, accentuated the opposition between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil to an extent that it became necessary for those who experienced this to produce an ensemble of signs: so it was not the morbid symptoms that were the primary fact, but the ‘cultural’ concept of the devil, a concept that was explained through shaking, shrieks and the like. The disturbed behavior, the shrieks, the ‘non-language,’ the violence, therefore become the means with which individuals interpret and actualize the presence of the devil, about which they have previously been informed through religious discourse.” (Ricci, <i>Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus</I>, 134)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.baylorisr.org/about-isr/distinguished-professors/david-lyle-jeffrey/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Lyle Jeffrey</a> (b. 1941) specifies:
<blockquote>Bede [672-735] and Gregory the Great [540-604], among others who identify Magdalene with the weeping penitent of Luke 7:36-50, suggest that the “seven devils” may be understood as a reference to seven vices (Bede, <i>Homilies on the Gospels</I> 2.4) or to a universal proclivity to a life of vice (Gregory the Great, <i>Homily on the Gospels</I> 33). Luke’s text itself, however, suggests in the episode of the Gadarene swine that ensues [Luke 8:26-39] that something more dramatic, however unspecified in his narrative, may have been involved. In any case, Luke is here naming a woman whose repentance and spiritual transformation were especially noteworthy and whose utter faithfulness to Jesus would see her both among the few remaining at the cross itself [Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25] and, after Jesus’ resurrection, as the one to whom first he would appear, in an episode recorded only in John’s Gospel [John 20:1-18]. Magdalene clearly occupies a place of respect among the disciples. (Jeffrey, <i>Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</i>, 119)</blockquote>
People of each generation have attached the issues of their own day to Mary Magdalene’s seven demons (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2). Ingrid Maisch (b. 1939) educates:
<blockquote>This statement [Luke 8:2] has always incited readers to produce “contemporary” explanations. Medieval theologians explained the seven demons as the seven deadly sins; Martin Luther [1483-1546] translated the expression in an era excited by fear of the devil and belief in witches with “seven devils”; authors in our own time, a period influenced by esotericism and New Age ideas, read the biblical text as an echo of the seven steps of initiation in the cult of a mother goddess or as a coded reference to the fact that Mary Magdalene was really filled (“possessed”) by the (feminine) Holy Spirit. The “seven demons” have always been made functional for the current age in every era of the history of interpretation. (Maisch, <i>Mary Magdalene: The Image of a Woman Through the Centuries</I>, 177)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.itvr.org/NURIA-CALDUCH-BENAGES-MN STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Nuria Calduch Benages</a> (b. 1957) surmises:
<blockquote>In the 1st-century Mediterranean world illness was considered a social question and as such a deviation from the cultural norms and values. Mary of Magdala, a woman possessed by seven demons [Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2], was an “outsider,” marginalized from society, who lived outside the limits, i.e. beyond the confines that fixed the limits of pure and impure, of holiness and sin, of observance and infidelity. (Benages, <i>The Perfume of the Gospel: Jesus’ Encounters with Women</I>, 78)</blockquote>
Many have attempted to re-diagnose Mary Magdalene’s condition. Carla Ricci (b. 1954) evaluates:
<blockquote>The only evidence we have for trying to reconstruct the nature of the disturbances from which Mary Magdalene was suffering is the expression under examination. In the light of recent advances in medical and psychological knowledge, we can suggest hypotheses. It was perhaps something in the nature of a psychic disorder. She may have been a woman of strong sensibilities, whose equilibrium had not withstood the impact of the painful problems life can bring, particularly those special problems a woman faced in the Palestine of Jesus’ time. (Ricci, <i>Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus</I>, 135)</blockquote>
Many modern ailments have been connected with Mary Magdalene. <a href=http://www.margaretstarbird.net/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Margaret Starbird</a> (b. 1942) reviews:
<blockquote>Luke’s assertion that Mary Magdalene was one “from whom seven demons had gone out” [Luke 8:2] may refer to her having been healed of illness, for people of that time often attributed unexplained diseases to demonic possession. Some also suggest the reference indicates specifically mental or emotional disorders, migraine headaches, or possibly severe bouts of depression. We should note that Luke, whose gospel was most likely written between A.D. 80 and 85, is the first of the synoptic gospels to mention demons in connection with Mary Magdalene. Although the final lines of Mark’s gospel speak of the seven demons, scholars believe that this passage (Mark 16:9-16) was a late addition to the gospel probably derive from the allegation in Luke. (Starbird, <i>Mary Magdalene, Bride in Exile</i>)</blockquote>
Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) supplements:
<blockquote>Her demon-possession [Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2] is variously interpreted today as epilepsy or mental illness, an obsession or addiction, a not understood compulsion, a binding by the spirits of unfreedom, a sign of the lack of the Holy Spirit. Her exorcism, linked with her first encounter with Jesus, is thought to have set her free from what oppressed her, made her a new woman, made holy and pure. Still the sexual dimension clings. And the demonic is often associated in film and video with senseless sound, garbled or improper speech, a roaring that must be silenced. (Schaberg, <i>The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament</I>, 77)</blockquote>
Epilepsy has been a particularly usual suspect in recent times. Sandra M. Rushing (b. 1941) typifies:
<blockquote>Apparently Mary Magdalene was epileptic or prone to a syndrome which carries the label “manic-depressive” in today’s culture. One scholar notes: “She was probably an epileptic, for epilepsy was commonly attributed to possession by evil spirits. ” (Rushing, <i>The Magdalene Legacy: Exploring the Wounded Icon of Sexuality</I>, 47-48)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.contemplative.org/cynthia.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cynthia Bourgeault</a> (b. 1947) presents:
<blockquote>In a modern commentary on Mary Magdalene, <a href=http://www.jeanyvesleloup.eu/>Jean-Yves Leloup</a> [b. 1950] is able to turn this text back on itself, arguing ingeniously that the fact that seven demons have been cast out of her [Luke 8:2] means that she’s “done her psychological work” inwardly and is hence prepared to be a disciple. But within Luke’s own frame of reference, this detail seems more intended to subtly undercut Mary Magdalene’s credibility as the premiere witness and apostle of the resurrection. It plants the first seeds of doubt—the vaguest innuendo of something “off” in her character...These seeds will soon spring up to take over the whole portrait. (Bourgeault, <i>The Meaning of Mary Magdalene: Discovering the Woman at the Heart of Christianity</i>, 14)</blockquote>
Significantly, there is nothing inherently sinful in being attacked by demons, and certainly nothing that lends itself to being characterized as a prostitute as has commonly been the case with Mary Magdalene.
<p><a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> (b. 1947) clarifies:
<blockquote>Demon possession is not connected to moral failure. Those possessed by demons need deliverance, not forgiveness, and possession by <i>seven</I> demons [Luke 8:2] indicates a grievous condition (see Luke 11:24-26). (Garland, <i>Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 342)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jgreen/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joel B. Green</a> (b. 1956) stipulates:
<blockquote>Luke neither characterizes Mary as having been previously a particularly immoral person nor gives any reason to suggest that she is to be identified with the “sinful woman” of Luke 7:36-50. (Green, <i>The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 320)</blockquote>
Luke indicates that Mary has been afflicted with precisely seven demons (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2). <a href=http://www.roberts.edu/catalog.aspx?id=1100 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John A. Martin</a> (b. 1949) notifies:
<blockquote>Often in Scripture the number seven is used to denote completion. Apparently Mary had been totally demon-possessed. (<a href=http://www.walvoord.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John F. Walvoord</a> [1910-2002] and <a href=http://www.dts.edu/read/roy-zuck-tribute/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Roy B. Zuck</a> [1932-2013], <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament</I>, 24)</blockquote>
<a href=http://archives.sbts.edu/special-collections/archibald-thomas-robertson-papers/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A.T. Robertson</a> (1863-1934) consents:
<blockquote>The presence of seven demons in one person indicates special malignity (Matthew 5:9). See Matthew 12:45 for the parable of the demon who came back with seven other demons worse than the first. (Robertson, <i>The Gospel according to Luke (Word Pictures of the New Testament)</I>), 124)</blockquote>
Esther A. de Boer (1959-2010) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>Luke describes only the illness of Mary Magdalene: not just one demon has gone out of her, nor a legion [Mark 5:9, 15; Luke 8:30], but precisely seven (cf. Luke 4:33, 8:30, 9:42). Most exegetes suggest that the number seven indicates totality (cf. Luke 11:21-26), meaning that Mary Magdalene would have been totally possessed and subsequently completely healed. As Carla Ricci [b. 1954] phrases it: Mary Magdalene was ‘dispossessed of herself’ and through Jesus could ‘return to self’...The seven demons also coincide with the Stoic view of the soul as having seven parts difficult to control: the capacities to feel, to hear, to touch, to taste, to see, to desire, and to speak. The eighth part of the soul is the ‘commander’: it has the task of keeping these different capacities in check and giving direction. To achieve a life in harmony with the Divine, one should free oneself from the claims of the seven, more sensual parts. If this is the context of Mary’s seven demons, Jesus, apparently taught her to control them...But Luke is far from clear. The seven demons of Mary Magdalene and the illnesses of Joanna and Susanna raise many questions [Luke 8:2-3], especially since Luke does not hesitate to specify the ailments of other women. Luke simply gives no clues to enable us to fins definitive explanations concerning the conditions of these three women. (de Boer, <i>The Gospel of Mary: Beyond a Gnostic and a Biblical Mary Magdalene</I>, 146-47)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.itvr.org/NURIA-CALDUCH-BENAGES-MN STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Nuria Calduch Benages</a> (b. 1957) discloses:
<blockquote>In the Semitic world of the Bible, but also in other cultures (Egyptian, Greek and others), the number 7 has a very strong symbolic meaning, as it expresses a complete period of time and especially the idea of totality. Quoting Luke 17:4 would suffice: “And if [one of your brothers] sins against you seven times a day and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive;” here the expression refers to proportionally between “much sin” and “much forgiveness.” However, if we analyze this expression in light of cultural anthropology, then “seven demons” may be interpreted as a reference to a case of pathology that has already been treated previously but without success. The number of demons (<i>daimon</I>, <i>daimonion</I>) indicates a case with symptoms that, after improvement in an initial phase, have repeated themselves and gradually become more virulent. In Luke 11:24-26, for example, Jesus explains that the possession of seven demons is a very serious case...According to <a href=http://www.research.deusto.es/cs/Satellite/deustoresearch/es/centros-equipos-e-investigadores/equipos-de-investigacion/157/investigador STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carmen Bernabé Ubieta</a> [b. 1957], Mary of Magdala had suffered from a series of relapses of a chronic disease and probably showed the following symptoms: a state of altered consciousness with traits of personality split that most likely influenced her character. In her view, the mention of seven demons in Luke 8:3 is an indication in this direction. (Benages, <i>The Perfume of the Gospel: Jesus’ Encounters with Women</I>, 77-78)</blockquote>
Carla Ricci (b. 1954) bolsters:
<blockquote>The number seven – like other numbers – had a special significance not only in the area of semitic culture and in the Bible, but also in Greece, Egypt and elsewhere. The origins of this would appear to lie in the four lunar phases of seven days each, rather than in the seven observable planets. According to Karl Rengstorf [1903-1992]: “In Babylon, where...attention was paid to the seven planets earlier than anywhere else, the number seven already had great importance in myth and worship before the planets were taken into consideration,” and, “on the other hand, the phases of the moon could be seen earlier and for primitive man were an obvious datum for working out and dividing time.” Symbolically, the number seven expresses a complete period of time and the idea of totality itself....A religious use of the term can be seen in Hebrew culture in the institution of the sabbath, the seventh day dedicated to God, and of the sabbatical year. In the New Testament writings it appears eighty-eight times. While in some of these cases, the number itself may be meant (e.g. Matthew 15:34), in others the influence of the old conceptions is clear. (Ricci, <i>Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus</I>, 131-32)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sfts.edu/about/people_faculty.asp?ID=145 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Annette Weissenrieder</a> (b. 1967) postulates:
<blockquote>At first glance, the seven demons that characterize Mary Magdalene’s illness in Luke 8:2 seem linked to the number seven, which is known to be associated with demons in antiquity. However, it is also possible that this number refers to the significance of the number seven in classical medicine, which is covered in depth in the Hippocratic text “De hebdomadibus” (Hebd). After an extensive introduction, in which the author observes a correspondence between the seven parts of the cosmos and the seven sections of the body he explains his remarks exclusively in terms of fever, which he analyzes as a total disturbance of the unity of the body – a unity that is based on the number seven. Fever has an especially detrimental effect on the human soul, which consists of seven parts, and this leads to a change in the person’s perception of reality. In Chapters 44-46 in particular, the author distinguishes between the patient’s reality and his own. The patient’s soul, he says, loses itself and confronts him or her with frightening and unfamiliar images, causing the person to lose control of him or herself. The author explains this phenomenon by stating that the seven sections that make up the human body have shifted out of equilibrium. It is possible that the author of the Gospel of Luke referred to a similar concept of illness. (Weissenrieder, <i>Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke: Insights of Ancient Medical Texts</I>, 300)</blockquote>
Whatever plagued her, it is clear that Mary Magdalene’s condition was severe. Carla Ricci (b. 1954) appraises:
<blockquote>As perceived in her time, this woman was considered a victim of a disease not easily understandable, which took her over physically and psychically, completely (shown by the use of the number seven [Luke 8:2]) and which took her into the category of those possessed by demons. (Ricci, <i>Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus</I>, 135)</blockquote>
The extent of Mary Magdalene’s ailment accents the magnitude of Jesus’ healing. <a href=http://corner.acu.edu.au/research_supervision/framework/browse.php?srperid=179 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Elizabeth V. Dowling</a> reasons:
<blockquote>In semitic interpretation, the number seven is linked with the character of totality so that, regarding the description of Mary Magdalene [Luke 8:2], ‘the number seven points to the fact that there could be no worse state of corruption.’ It should be noted that if the number seven indicates the extent of her possession, it also indicates the extent of her cure. Mary Magdalene is characterized as ‘someone who has experienced the unlimited (seven) liberating power of <i>basileia</I> [“kingdom”] in her own life.’ (Dowling, <i>Taking Away the Pound: Women, Theology and the Parable of the Pounds in the Gospel of Luke</I>, 150-51)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ctu.edu/academics/barbara-e-reid-op STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barbara E. Reid</a> (b. 1953) agrees:
<blockquote>Luke, in underscoring the gravity of Mary’s illness, is more intent on highlighting the greatness of Jesus’ power of healing that he is on telling us something about Mary. Rather than speculate on how ill she had been, the preacher would do better to focus on how completely she experienced the liberating, healing power of God. (Reid, <i>Parables for Preachers: Year C</I>, 99)</blockquote>
The text, after all, is about Jesus, not Mary Magdalene. <a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Stein</a> (b. 1935) grants:
<blockquote><b>From whom seven demons had come out</b> [Luke 8:2]. Luke mentioned this in order to show the severity of her problem (cf. Luke 11:26) and the greatness of Jesus’ miracle of healing. (Stein, <i>Luke (New American Commentary)</I>, 241)</blockquote>
When demons encounter Jesus in Scripture, they unequivocally lose; the demons accrue a worse record than the <a href=http://www.washingtongenerals.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Washington Generals</a>.
<p>Some critics have viewed the reference to Mary Magdalene’s demons as an embarrassment (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2) and have suggested that Luke includes this detail to discredit her.
<p>Richard J. Hooper (b. 1943) criticizes:
<blockquote>The author of <i>Luke</I> attempted to diminish the importance of Mary Magdalene and her resurrection tradition by inventing a story about her “seven demons” [Luke 8:2], not naming her as a witness to the crucifixion, denying her an apostolic commission, having her prostrate herself before two masculine heavenly messengers, and by claiming that the male disciples of Jesus did not believe her testimony. (Hooper, <i>The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene: The Historical Tradition of the First Apostle and the Ancient Church’s Campaign to Suppress It</I>, 214)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sylviabrowne.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sylvia Browne</a> (1936-2013) interjects:
<blockquote>The Gospel of Luke...tries to suppress Magdalene’s importance by referring to the seven demons within her that were cast out and portraying her as a financial supporter of Jesus’s ministry [Luke 8:2-3]. According to <a href=http://hds.harvard.edu/people/karen-l-king STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Karen L. King</a> [b. 1954], scholars suspect these two tidbits of data as perhaps an obvious attempt to reduce Magdalene’s (and all women’s, for that matter) importance and put her in a subservient role. (Browne, <i>The Two Marys: The Hidden History of the Mother and Wife of Jesus</i>)</blockquote>
Some have even conjectured that Luke concocts Mary Magdalene’s demons to disparage her. Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) shares:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert M. Price</a> [b. 1954] has argued...that the claim that Mary Magdalene had been demon-possessed may not be based on historical memory. It may be, rather, a trace of early polemics against what was regarded as heresy, and hence her authority. “[I]t is hard to see how being tagged with the reputation of sevenfold demon-possession would not seriously undermine one’s credibility as an apostle” — even if it is only what she was healed from, what she used to be. (Schaberg, <i>The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament</I>, 77)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.margaretstarbird.net/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Margaret Starbird</a> (b. 1942) supports:
<blockquote>Some modern scholars assert that, rather than a historically accurate statement, Luke’s allegation of demon possession was an attempt to diminish Mary Magdalene’s stature by suggesting that she was unclean and subject to psychological problems of some nature. Perhaps this was a politically motivated attempt to lessen her preeminence, which is inherent in the story of her witness to the resurrection. (Starbird, <i>Mary Magdalene, Bride in Exile</i>)</blockquote>
Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) professes:
<blockquote>Whether Luke created her seven demons [Luke 8:2], or they were traditional, Mary Magdalene is the madwoman in Christianity’s attic. (Schaberg, <i>The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament</I>, 79)</blockquote>
Some scholars have used the unease surrounding the inclusion of Mary Magdalene’s demons (Luke 8:2) to validate its historicity. Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) reveals:
<blockquote><a href=http://theology.nd.edu/people/faculty/john-p-meier/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John P. Meier</a> [b. 1942] thinks that the criterion of embarrassment and coherence suggest that historically Jesus performed an exorcism on her. But whose embarrassment? We can suppose the prominence of a flawed female figure was <i>less</I> embarrassing to males who opposed her and her memory than an unflawed female, especially when that flaw, even if healed, connotes madness, deviant behavior, and heresy. Feminist scholars look at the tradition in a radically different way, as indicating the association of Mary Magdalene with protest against injustice, and with prophetic vision. (Schaberg, <i>The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament</I>, 260)</blockquote>
It is clear that whatever her demons may be, they no longer torment her as she follows Jesus (Luke 8:2-3). Mary Magdalene makes a complete recovery.
<p><a href=http://archives.sbts.edu/special-collections/archibald-thomas-robertson-papers/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A.T. Robertson</a> inspects:
<blockquote><i>And also some women who had been healed</I> (καὶ γυναικές τινες αι ἠσαν τεθεραπευμέναι) [Luke 8:2]...[is] a periphrastic past perfect passive, suggesting that the healing had taken place some time earlier. These women all had personal grounds for gratitude toward Jesus. (Robertson, <i>The Gospel according to Luke (Word Pictures of the New Testament)</I>), 124)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=187 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce Chilton</a> (b. 1949) considers:
<blockquote>Should we see the exorcism of Mary’s seven demons as a series of events or a single explosive rout? Luke’s spare reference doesn’t answer this question directly. The demons are simply described as having “gone out” (<I>exeleluthei</I>) of Mary. If a Greek speaker wanted to imply that on one spectacular occasion Jesus expelled them all, it would have been more natural just to say that he cast them out (using the verb <i>ekballo</I>), as happens at other points in the Gospels (see Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39; Matthew 8:28-34). The use of the verb <i>exeleluthei</I> and the absence of any reference to a dramatic expulsion of the demons make it seem likely that Mary’s demons balked when Jesus commanded them to depart. In a later version of Luke’s description, which was appended to the Gospel According to Mark (Mark 16:9), the wording was changed in order to describe the demons as having been “cast out” (<i>ekbeblekeii</I>). This pastiche ending of Mark is much later than the Gospel itself. In the way of many summary references in the Gospels, it irons out the troubling feature of demonic contention with Jesus. (Chilton, <i>Mary Magdalene: A Biography</I>, 164)</blockquote>
Luke does not record the exorcism itself (Luke 8:2). As such, some have speculated that in this case, Jesus may not even serve as exorcist. <a href=http://www.contemplative.org/cynthia.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cynthia Bourgeault</a> (b. 1947) notifies:
<blockquote>In fact, claims the historian <a href=http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=187 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce Chilton</a> [b. 1949], Jesus may actually have learned the art of ritual anointing from Mary Magdalene! In his remarkable book <i>Mary Magdalene: A Biography</I>, Chilton speculates that her struggles with demons may have brought her into the healing and shamanic circles for which her region of Galilee is well known. Anointing may have been a core piece of the healing arts with which she gifted him, accounting for his increasing divergence from the Nazirite path to which he was originally consecrated...While there is clearly some circular logic at work (and quite a few eggs in the basket of Luke’s brief comment in Luke 8:2, “Mary called Magdalene had been freed of seven demons”), I believe that Chilton is genuinely onto something here. Less important than the bottom line of who-taught-whom the actual spiritual skill in question is his implicit understanding that Jesus may have learned from Mary Magdalene as much as he taught her. (Bourgeault, <i>The Meaning of Mary Magdalene: Discovering the Woman at the Heart of Christianity</i>, 183-84)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bartdehrman.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bart D. Ehrman</a> (b. 1955) responds:
<blockquote>Luke doesn’t actually say that it was Jesus who was healed of her ailment, but it can probably be inferred. Just a few verses earlier he indicates that “Jesus cured many people of sicknesses and plagues and evil spirits” (Luke 7:21). And it is explicitly stated in then ending of the Gospel of Mark [Mark 16:9] that was added by a later scribe (Mark himself ended his story at Mark 16:8). (Ehrman, <i>Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend</I>, 206-07)</blockquote>
In spite of their gender and troubled pasts, Mary Magdalene and the other women assume prominent roles in Jesus’ retinue (Luke 8:2-3). <a href=http://uft.edu.au/staff/brendan-byrne STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Brendan J. Byrne</a> (b. 1939) ponders:
<blockquote>From a feminist perspective, this brief notice will not be particularly appealing. There is a suggestion that women are prone to mental illness; their role seems to be the auxiliary one of providing for Jesus and those (the male disciples) who had “left and followed him” (Luke 5:11). At the level of interpretation, these problems cannot be denied. At the same time, it is important to note what is likely to have been Luke’s intention at this point. In comparison with men, women in the ancient world belonged to the margins of society. What Luke seems to be suggesting here, in continuity with the scene immediately preceding [Luke 7:36-50], is that among the marginalized who received healing from Jesus and responded with generous service were a significant number of women. (Byrne, <i>The Hospitality of God: A Reading of Luke’s Gospel</I>, 76-77)</blockquote>
Many scholars presume that these women share equal status with Jesus’ male disciples (Luke 8:2-3). I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) values:
<blockquote>Along with the Twelve are mentioned the women; they appear on the same level as the men (Walter Grundmann [1906-1976], 174). (Marshall, <i>The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 316)</blockquote>
David L. Tiede (b. 1940) proclaims:
<blockquote>Whatever modern minds make of the delivery from evil spirits, even this strange passage accredits Mary Magdalene and the other women social prominence, economic capacity, and standing among the disciples. (Tiede, <a href=http://www.up.edu/showimage/show.aspx?file=18101 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rebecca J. Kruger Gaudino</a>, <a href=http://ptstulsa.edu/DirectoryBios?ID=1 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary Peluso-Verdend</a> [b. 1955] and <a href=http://www.bu.edu/sth/profile/david-schnasa-jacobsen/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Schnasa Jacobsen</a> [b.1961], <i>New Proclamation: Year C, 2007, Easter Through Christ the King</I>, 11)</blockquote>
The women are ministers in their own right (Luke 8:2-3). John Indermark (b. 1950) expounds:
<blockquote>There is one crucial discipleship text from Luke among this chapter’s passages: Luke 8:1-3. It is so brief that we may miss its power and potential scandal. It lists women who followed Jesus along with the Twelve. Mary Magdalene leads the list, along with others whose names may not be so familiar. Luke later refers to women present in the post-Crucifixion story (Luke 24:1-9), when, by the way, the Twelve were nowhere to be found. But even now, in Chapter 8, Luke affords these women not simply a place in the story, but a ministry in the story. The word translated “provided for” in Luke 8:3 is <i>diakoneo</I>, a verb that, when used in reference to males, tends to be translated as “minister.” So already in the community Jesus calls and empowers, women play a central—and some would argue, a ministerial—role, affording...a glimpse into Luke’s broadly inclusive view of Jesus’ ministry and the community it generates. (Indermark, <i>Luke (Immersion Bible Studies)</I>)</blockquote>
Mary Magdalene certainly has “a past” (Luke 8:2). She holds many qualities that would have prevented her from following most itinerant rabbis of the era. Not so Jesus. Not only is Mary permitted to follow Christ, she is given a place of prominence in his band of followers and the subsequent tradition that develops around him. The presence of women in general and Mary Magdalene in particular speaks volumes about Jesus’ inclusiveness. All are welcome to follow Christ.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why does Luke provide these specific details regarding Jesus’ female followers (Luke 8:2-3)? What characteristic of Mary Magdalene is most identifiable (Luke 8:2)? Which attribute represents the biggest obstacle to her following Christ? Is the reader supposed to like her? In what ways are the roles of Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna similar and different from Jesus’ male disciples (Luke 8:1-3)? Do you believe Mary’s demons are external evil forces or internal scientifically explainable ailments (Luke 8:2)? Are these demons the cause of her encounter with Jesus? Is there any indication as to how she acquired her demons? When have you been overtaken by an illness? What from your past have you struggled to live down? What can be determined from the biblical record about Mary Magdalene? How has Mary been presented?</font>
<p>Mary Magdalene has captivated the imagination of believers throughout the centuries. The lack of detail provided by the Bible has proven tantalizing and many have attempted to fill the gaps.
<p><a href=http://www.christchurchcathedral.org/bios/the-reverend-betty-conrad-adam/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Betty Conrad Adam</a> (b. 1939) acknowledges:
<blockquote>There has always been a mystique about Mary Magdalene, whether she was understood as an apostle of high moral character or as a reformed prostitute. There’s always been a fascination with her relationship to Jesus, her preaching and teaching, and after the sixth century, her penitence. In the Middle Ages there was an outburst of mysterious attraction and veneration than in its intensity rivaled any saint. There seems to have been an insatiable desire to fill in the gaps and lost detail of the life of the woman whose seven demons Jesus had cast out [Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2] and who remained at the cross and went to the burial place and received first blessing from Jesus after his entombment (Matthew 27:56, 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; Luke 24:10; John 19:25, 20:1-18]. (Adam, <i>The Magdalene Mystique: Living the Spirituality of Mary Today</I>, 63)</blockquote>
A mythology has developed around the figure of Mary Magdalene. <a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/john_t_carroll/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John T. Carroll</a> (b. 1954) remarks:
<blockquote>The characterization of Mary as a woman from whom seven demons have been banished (with Jesus implicitly the healer) [Mark 16:9;Luke 8:2], together with her later role in connection with the resurrection of Jesus (Luke 24:10; embellished in John 20:11-18, and expansively in extracanonical literature such as the gnostic <i>Gospel of Mary</I>), provides the raw materials for considerable legendary development, reaching even to the twenty-first century. (Carroll, <i>Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</i>, 182-83)</blockquote>
The perception of Mary changed dramatically over time. <a href=http://www.sistersinscripture.com/content/about_kathleen/about_kathleen.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kathleen MacInnis Kichline</a> (b. 1947) briefs:
<blockquote>Although the early Church fathers frequently extolled the virtues of Mary Magdalene, over time a different picture of her emerged. Some of this can be attributed to confusion over the several Marys and other women of the Gospels, and the resulting tendency to conflate these into one. Over time, the dominant image associated with Mary Magdalene became that of a repentant sinner. (Kichline, <i>Sisters in Scripture: Exploring the Relationships of Biblical Women</I>, 98)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.stetson.edu/artsci/philosophy/sperkins.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sylvia Walsh</a> (b. 1937) tracks:
<blockquote>Initially...she was recognized and lauded in the early church for being a disciple who was present at his crucifixion and, according to Mark 16:9 and John 20:14, the first person to witness the resurrection, as well as, according to John 20:17, the first of Jesus’ disciples to be charged with publicly proclaiming the good news of his resurrection and ascension (Susan Haskins, 3-14). Hippolytus (ca. 170-ca. 235), a bishop of Rome, not only accorded her apostolic status but elevated her to the position of being the “apostle to the apostles” (Haskins, 63-65, 88-90). Since the status of women in the church was already in decline by the second century AD, this appellation was anachronistic and soon obscured by the association of Mary Magdalene with the woman who was a sinner [Luke 7:36-50]. Among the Christian Gnostic cults, however, she continued to play an important role, in correlation with the more egalitarian status of women in these groups. One of their writings, <i>The Gospel of Mary</I>, written sometime in the late second or early third century, portrays her as more beloved by Christ than his male disciples (much to their envy) and as standing in a position of authority over them (much to their disgruntlement) (Haskins, 38-41). Significantly, the Gnostic gospels nowhere refer to Mary as a sinner or prostitute, yet the dualistic nature of their religion, in which the opposition between spirit and matter, male and female, good and evil is ultimately overcome in a spiritual state of androgyny or sexual indifference, nevertheless led to the association of women and sexuality with evil, requiring her to lose her femaleness and become a man in order to achieve spiritual perfection (Haskins, 38, 42-43). (<a href=http://www.stetson.edu/artsci/philosophy/kierk.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Perkins</a> [b. 1930], “Prototypes of Piety: The Woman Who Was a Sinner and Mary Magdalene”, <i>Without Authority</I>, 316-17)</blockquote>
The shift of the depiction of Mary Magdalene is evidenced in artistic representations. <a href=http://cnu.edu/finearts/faculty/erhardt/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michelle A. Erhardt</a> (b. 1969) and <a href=http://www.unomaha.edu/fineart/art/faculty/morris.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy M. Morris</a> (b. 1972) chart:
<blockquote>Not only was Mary Magdalene constantly emerging in new roles, but even the manner in which standard scenes were represented was constantly evolving. Magdalene imagery responded to a range of artistic, social, and historical factors. <a href=http://www.adelphi.edu/faculty/profiles/profile.php?PID=0417 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andrea Begel</a> [b. 1972] in her essay on Giovanni da Milano [fourteenth century]’s <I>Anointing</I> from the Guidalotti-Rinuccini Chapel, <a href=http://en.comune.fi.it/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Florence</a> chronicles how the Magdalene was transformed into a demonically possessed sinner by the inclusion of a rare detail, seven demons fleeing the room. Begel argues that the fresco makes reference to a rarely depicted episode from Luke 8:1-3, the exorcism of Mary Magdalene by Christ as a result of Christ’s forgiveness. (Erhardt and Morris, <i>Mary Magdalene, Iconographic Studies from the Middle Ages to the Baroque</I>, 17)</blockquote>
Despite Mary Magdalene’s image being influenced by the passage detailing her seven demons (Luke 8:1-3), this scene is seldom represented in art. <a href=http://cnu.edu/finearts/faculty/erhardt/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michelle A. Erhardt</a> (b. 1969) teaches:
<blockquote>In the fresco Christ reaches down with his right hand and accepts Magdalene’s contrition for her sins, showing his acceptance with the open palm of his hand in a gesture of absolution. It is also, as <a href=http://www.adelphi.edu/faculty/profiles/profile.php?PID=0417 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andrea Begel</a> [b. 1972] notes in her essay on the Magdalene and demonic possession, the only depiction of this scene to include the detail of the seven demons fleeing from Magdalene’s tortured soul upon Christ’s forgiveness of her sins described in Luke’s Gospel. (Erhardt and <a href=http://www.unomaha.edu/fineart/art/faculty/morris.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy M. Morris</a> [b. 1972], “The Magdalene as Mirror: Trecento Franciscan Imagery in the Guidalotti-Rinuccini Chapel, Florence”, <i>Mary Magdalene, Iconographic Studies from the Middle Ages to the Baroque</I>, 30)</blockquote>
Through the majority of church history in the west, Mary Magdalene has been depicted as a prostitute. <a href=http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=187 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce Chilton</a> (b. 1949) reveals:
<blockquote>Luke’s reference to Mary’s seven demons [Luke 8:2] encouraged the Western tradition that depicts her as a prostitute. Typical paintings portray her in lavish dress, arranging herself in front of a mirror, or abased in shame at Jesus’ feet. Medieval piety associated vanity with prostitution, on the grounds that women sold themselves only because they enjoyed whoring, and pastoral theologians saw self-abasement, including flagellation on many occasions, as the best cure for this sin. Vanity and lust were kissing cousins within Mary’s demonic menagerie prior to her exorcism, which was portrayed in the West as a conversion. (Chilton, <i>Mary Magdalene: A Biography</I>, 8)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.whitbyforum.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carolyn Custis James</a> (b. 1948) recognizes:
<blockquote>Although there is no biblical evidence linking her to Mary Magdalene, this association became so strong English dictionaries define <i>magdalen</I> as a “reformed prostitute.” (James, <i>Lost Women of the Bible: Finding Strength & Significance Through Their Stories</I>, 184)</blockquote>
Mary Magdalene’s connection with prostitution stems from an ancient conflation between the Mary of Luke 7:36-50 and the Mary of Luke 8:1-3. Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) explores:
<blockquote>Mary of Magdala was later identified with the sinful woman of Luke 7:37 because the two texts stood close together and perhaps even because Magdala was infamous for its lewdness (but this was a different town of the same name; cf. Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 1.1047). If the identification were correct, Luke 7:37 should have mentioned that she had been healed of possession (Luke 8:2; cf. Luke 11:26). In addition, if all of the “anointing” narratives were identified—which the variety of setting and content does not permit—Mary of Magdala would be the woman of Mark 14:3, according to John 11:1-2 the sister of Lazarus and Martha, who “served at table,” like the woman in Luke 10:40, i.e., the “Mary” mentioned in Luke 10:39, 42. In this case Jesus would be near Jerusalem in Luke 10:38, which Luke at least does not assume. This is pure speculation, but she does appear clearly in all the Easter stories, where she is always (except for John 19:25; but cf. John 20:1) the first of the women mentioned, usually three. (Schweizer, <i>The Good News According to Luke</I>, 142)</blockquote>
Carla Ricci (b. 1954) records:
<blockquote>In 1872, Frédéric Godet [1812-1900], declaring that the identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinner in Luke “is without the slightest basis,” picked out one of the reasons for it as confusing demonic possession, which is an illness, with a state of moral corruption...<a href=http://www.mj-lagrange.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marie-Joseph Lagrange</a> [1855-1938], in his monumental 1920 commentary on Luke’s Gospel, identifies Jerome [347-420] as the author who, associating the concept of possession with that of sin, was perhaps responsible for the first step on the road to subsuming the three in one. In a letter to Marcella [325-410], Jerome writes: <I>“Maria Magdalena ipsa est, a qua septem daemonia expulerat; ut ubi abundaverat peccatum, superabundaret gratia.”</I> Lagrange maintains that the texts cannot support the identification of the sinner with Mary Magdalene, confirms that no early exegete before Jerome made this identification and shows how exegetes came to support the unicity of Mary of Bethany and the sinner because of the fact that the Fathers had allowed only one anointing, and how they came to identify Mary Magdalene with the sinner through the confusion in the references to each of them and demonic possession. The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany stemmed from this, aided by the coincidence of the name Mary. (Ricci, <i>Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who Followed Jesus</I>, 34-35)</blockquote>
The most important connection between the two Marys comes from Gregory the Great (540-604). <a href=https://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/brittany-e-wilson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Brittany E. Wilson</a> (b. 1980) pinpoints:
<blockquote>The first influential identification of Mary Magdalene as a sinner who repents of her sexual lascivious past does not occur until the sixth century with Pope Gregory the Great [540-604]. Mary Magdalene’s appearance in this guise arises from her conflation with a number of other women in the canonical accounts, including Mary of Bethany, who anoints Jesus’ head (or feet) (Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:6-13; John 12:1-8), and the nameless sinner who anoints Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:36-50). In a move that overturned earlier uncertainty regarding their unified identity, Gregory the Great claimed that all of these women were one and the same, designating Mary Magdalene as the anointing “sinful woman.” What is more, he not only identifies Mary Magdalene as sinful, but specifies that her sinfulness was sexual in nature. In a homily on Luke’s Gospel, he writes: “This woman, whom Luke calls a sinner, John names Mary, I believe that she is the same Mary of whom Mark says that seven demons had been cast out [Mark 16:9]...It is evident, my friends, that a woman who had earlier been eager for actions which are not allowed had used the ointment as a scent for her own body. What she had earlier used disgracefully for herself she now laudably offered for the Lord...She converted the number of her faults into the number of virtues, so that she could serve God completely in repentance as she had rejected him in sin.” (Homily 33)...Although Eastern Orthodox Christians never subscribed to this conflation of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the unnamed sinner, Gregory the Great’s interpretation cemented Mary Magdalene’s reputation as a penitent sinner for most of her interpretive history in the West. (<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carol A. Newsom</a> [b. 1950], <a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sharon H. Ringe</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1937 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacqueline E. Lapsley</a> [b. 1965], “Mary Magdalene and Her Interpreters”, <i>Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated</I>, 532)</blockquote>
Though many had speculated previously, Gregory’ influence made the conflation of the two Marys the pervasive view. <a href=http://www.christchurchcathedral.org/bios/the-reverend-betty-conrad-adam/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Betty Conrad Adam</a> (b. 1939) laments:
<blockquote>Beginning in the fourth century, the move had been made in some corners of the church, among the popular masses as well as by church leaders. In the sixth century the move was definitively set out by Pope Gregory I [504-604] in a sermon in 591. Thus the mystery-laden Mary Magdalene, known for her patience and perseverance and loyalty to Jesus and for her visionary prophecy following her encounter with the risen Lord, was pushed into the darkness by her contrived sensational past. Her true light had almost gone out. (Adam, <i>The Magdalene Mystique: Living the Spirituality of Mary Today</I>, 54)</blockquote>
Ingrid Maisch (b. 1939) attributes:
<blockquote>It was only with the work of Gregory the Great [540-604] that the unified figure began to prevail in the West...It is true that Gregory did not invent this conflation, but he combined existing initiatives and thus created a unified figure that, thanks to his authority, was accepted in the Western Church. In this he did not argue as an exegete defending a scholarly theory; he simply took up statements made from time to time in different situations. This made his argumentation powerfully persuasive, for depending on the occasion the individual features of this “new” Mary Magdalene could be alluded to: the convert, the loving woman, the Easter messenger. The occasions were public homilies Gregory preached, each oriented to a particular pericope from the gospels (Luke 7:36-50; John 20:1-18), and in one case a very personal letter to Gregoria, a lady-in-waiting at the imperial court, who was concerned about the forgiveness of sins and assurance of salvation. In particular, his response to Gregoria shows that Gregory did not proceed in the manner of a systematic theologian, but simply reacted to the occasion...This letter begins to make clear to us the source of the power of the image of the <i>sinful</i> Magdalene: it was so influential not because it devalued a particular woman but because it relieved the anxiety of <i>everyone</I> about his or her salvation..Gregory had no interest in Mary Magdalene as a person (and to the extent he is only indirectly the originator of her biography and of the later negative image of Magdalene!) but only in her significance as a unifying element between the biblical model and the ecclesial reality. Nevertheless, with this “artistic image” he created a Christian figure that little by little developed a power of attraction al its own. (Maisch, <i>Mary Magdalene: The Image of a Woman Through the Centuries</I>, 44-46)</blockquote>
The image of Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute has persisted. <a href=http://www.sistersinscripture.com/content/about_kathleen/about_kathleen.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kathleen MacInnis Kichline</a> (b. 1947) chronicles:
<blockquote>Although some writers, including the German nun Anne Catharine Emmerich (1774-1824), have made much of exploiting the salaciousness of this image, other writers and artists, such as the great eleventh-century theologian and saint Anselm of Canterbury [1033-1109], have found much comfort and encouragement in the still-popular image of Mary Magdalene as repentant sinner. (Kichline, <i>Sisters in Scripture: Exploring the Relationships of Biblical Women</I>, 98)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.jeanyvesleloup.eu/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jean-Yves Leloup</a> (b. 1950) regrets:
<blockquote>Unfortunately the fact that Mary Magalene is freed from the possession of seven demons [Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2] has resulted in greater focus on the perceived stigma of her past as interpreted in <i>Homily 33</I> than on her cleansed state after this healing. Only in 1969 did the Catholic Church officially repeal Gregory [540-604]’s labeling of Mary as a whore, thereby admitting their error—though the image of Mary Magdalene as the penitent whore has remained in the public teachings of all Christian denominations. Like a small erratum buried in the back pages of a newspaper, the Church’s correction goes unnoticed, while the initial and incorrect article continues to influence readers. (Leloup, <i>The Gospel of Mary Magdalene</i>)</blockquote>
That the two Mary’s in Luke 7:36-50 and Luke 8:1-3 are one and the same has been rejected by modern scholars. Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) refutes:
<blockquote>The fact that no name is given to the ἁμαρτωλός [“sinful woman”, Luke 7:37 NASB] in the preceding section, while Mary Magdalen is introduced here as an entirely new person [Luke 8:2], is against the traditional identification of the two. Moreover, such an affliction as virulent demoniacal possession would be almost incompatible with the miserable trade of prostitution. If Luke had wished to intimate that the ἁμαρτωλός is Mary Magdalen, he could have done it much more clearly. Had he wished to conceal the fact, he would not have placed these two sections in juxtaposition. Had he wished to withhold the name of the ἁμαρτωλός, who may possibly have been included among the ἕτεραι πολλαί [“many others”, Luke 8;3 NASB], he would have done as he has done. The ἁμαρτωλός [Luke 7:37] and Mary Magdalen [Luke 8:2, 24:10] and Mary of Bethany [Luke 10:39, 42] are three distinct persons. (Plummer, <i>The Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 216)</blockquote>
R.T. France (1938-2012) concedes:
<blockquote>The traditional chapter division obscures the significant link between this story and the following account of other women associated with Jesus’s ministry. On the other hand, however, too much was made of the juxtaposition of the two stories when later tradition supposed that Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2) was formerly a prostitute. There is no biblical warrant for that idea. Luke makes no suggestion that Mary was the woman of Luke 7:36-50, and he describes her deliverance in quite different terms. (France, <i>Luke (Teach the Text Commentary)</I>, 134)</blockquote>
Susan Haskins contemplates:
<blockquote>That Mary Magdalen’s condition might have been psychological, that is, seen as madness, rather than moral or sexual, seems never to have entered into the considerations of the early biblical commentators, although it preoccupied her interpreters from the nineteenth century onwards. There is, afer all, no implication in the story of the <i>man</I> possessed of devils that his ‘unclean spirit’ is sexual (Luke 8:26-39), nor in that of the demoniacs whose ‘devils’ went into the swine which ‘ran violently down a steep place into the sea’ (Matthew 8:28-34). Nor, indeed, in the story of the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman who was cured of her unclean spirit (Matthew 15:21-28). Mrs. [Clara Lucas] Balfour [1808-1878], the noted nineteenth-century Evangelical, was one of the first to deny that Mary Magdalen’s malaise was anything other than psychological, and more recently one scholar has written that rather than being in a state of sinfulness, she probably suffered from a ‘violent and chronic nervous disorder.’ (Haskins, <i>Mary Magdalen: Truth and Myth</I>, 14-15)</blockquote>
Justo L. González (b. 1937) accuses:
<blockquote>The manner in which Mary Magdalene has been traditionally depicted merits some reflection. There is nothing in the text to suggest that the “seven demons” of which she had been cured had anything to do with sexual impurity or immorality [Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2]. Nor is there any reason to think that the “sinful woman” of the previous section [Luke 7:36-50] had any particular connection with Mary Magdalene. Yet the common notion, often depicted in art, is that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. This may well be the result of a history of interpretation dominated by men—and by men who tended to see woman almost exclusively as sexual objects, and their sins as mostly sexual in nature. (González, <i>Luke (Belief: a Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 103)</blockquote>
Mary Magdalene has been unduly disparaged as a grievous sinner, most commonly a prostitute, throughout much of the western church’s history. Whereas Mary the mother of Jesus has been almost deified in some circles, Mary Magdalene has been equally chastised. Instead of being pitied for her condition, the victim has been blamed.
<p>Jesus redeems Mary. Yet the church has undone the redemption of her reputation. In publicly maligning her, her name has been irreparably damaged. But God knows the truth.
<p><font color="#66CD00">What maladies evoke sympathy, which evoke disdain? Has Mary Magdalene been treated fairly by history? When has a false accusation spread out of control?</font>
<p>“Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us.” - Thomas Paine (1737-1809)Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-76228753595618371732014-10-23T15:00:00.000-07:002014-10-24T07:36:07.070-07:00The Land of “Milk and Honey” (Numbers 13:27)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-clYs--QhUdU/VEmZFfofPII/AAAAAAAAI8E/wrPshR1sC68/s1600/Milk%26HoneyDaleFairbanks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-clYs--QhUdU/VEmZFfofPII/AAAAAAAAI8E/wrPshR1sC68/s320/Milk%26HoneyDaleFairbanks.jpg" /></a></div><b>How did the Israelite spies sent by Moses describe the land of Canaan? A land flowing with milk and honey (Numbers 13:27)</b>
<p>Before entering the Promised Land, God instructs Moses to send spies into the region to survey it (Numbers 13:1-2). A representative from each tribe is selected for the mission (Numbers 13:3-16). The operatives return with tangible evidence of the land’s sustenance in the form of an impressive cluster of grapes (Numbers 13:23) and concede that the land is as advertised - it does indeed “flow with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8; Numbers 13:27).
<blockquote>Thus they told him, and said, “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. (Numbers 13:27 NASB)</blockquote>
Like a modern day church building project in which the architect is brought in to bring specs of what is being built to capture the people’s imagination, spies are conscripted to give the people an idea of the land that can be theirs and their descendants (Numbers 13:1-2). Though the contingency agrees that the land is excellent, they return with mixed emotions (Numbers 13:26-29).
<p><a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1949&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dennis T. Olson</a> (b. 1954) informs:
<blockquote>Moses instructs the twelve tribes to survey the land not only to deduce the military might of its inhabitants but also to observe the fertility of the land (Numbers 13:17-21). The spies reconnoiter the land for forty days and then return to report what they have seen [Numbers 13:25]. The initial spy report has some good news and some bad news. The land is indeed fruitful and “flows with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27). But the bad news is that the residents of the land and strong and live in fortified cities (Numbers 13:28-29, 31-33). (Olson, <i>Numbers (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching</I>, 78)</blockquote>
The Promised Land is described as a land that “does flow with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27 NASB). <a href=http://www.bethbc.org/academics/faculty/dr-salim-j-munayer STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Salim J. Munayer</a> (b. 1955) introduces:
<blockquote>References to the Promised Land in the Bible are many...While some quantitatively describe the borders, others are more concerned with describing the land qualitatively. For this reason we often see the land promised by God described as a land flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5; Leviticus 20:24-26, 22:4; Numbers 13:27, 14:8; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:8-12, 26:8-9, 27:2-3, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22; Ezekiel 20:5-6, 15). Typically this phrase is taken to be a description of the land of Canaan, the phrase “milk and honey” as a “metaphor meaning all good things—God’s blessings.” While some try and draw a literal connection between the land of Canaan and flowing milk and honey, most understand it “to be hyperbolically descriptive of the land’s richness.” (Munayer and <a href=http://www.nazarethseminary.org/faculty.php?eventid=48 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lisa Loden</a>, “Theology of the Land: From a Land of Strife to a Land of Reconciliation”, <i>The Land Cries Out: Theology of the Land in the Israeli-Palestinian Context</i>, 252)</blockquote>
“Milk and honey” is a common epithet of the land that serves almost as a refrain throughout the biblical text (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6; Sirach 46:8; Baruch 1:20; II Esdras 2:19; Jubilees 1:7; cf. II Kings 18:32; Job 20:17; <i>Sibylline Oracles</I> 3.6222).
<p>The expression accentuates the goodness of the land with most interpreters focusing on its fertility. <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66212>W.H. Bellinger, Jr.</a> (b. 1949) comments:
<blockquote>“Flowing with milk and honey” is a common description of the fertility of the land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6] . The land was not terribly fertile but would have seemed so in comparison to the wilderness. <a href=http://www.bangor.ac.uk/spar/staff/davies.php.en STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eryl W. Davies</a> [b. 1953] cites evidence that the phrase is a stock one in the ancient Near East (<i>Numbers</I>, p. 138). (Bellinger, <i>Leviticus, Numbers (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</i>)</blockquote>
The phrase is first heard from the Burning Bush where God uses the expression to promote the land that the Israelites will be taking while speaking to Moses (Exodus 3:8). The <i>Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</I> traces:
<blockquote>“A land flowing with milk and honey,” a phrase that encapsulates the abundant goodness of the Promised Land, first appears in God’s conversation with Moses from the burning bush in Exodus 3:8. It subsequently occurs fourteen times in the Pentateuch [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20] , once in Joshua [Joshua 5:6] and several times in Jeremiah and Ezekiel within contexts alluding to Israel’s history [Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6] . (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/R/Lee-Ryken STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leland Ryken</a> [b. 1942], <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/James-Wilhoit STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James C. Wilhoit</a> [b. 1951] and <a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952], <i>Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</I>, 488)</blockquote>
Though “milk and honey” is used previously, the spies’ report marks the first time the phrase is heard on the lips of the people and not God (Numbers 13:27). The Promised Land is as good as God (and by association Moses) had advertised.
<p>Some scholars have attempted to isolate the expression to a particular source as posited by the Documentary Hypothesis. George Buchanan Gray (1865-1922) delineates:
<blockquote><i>A land flowing with milk and honey</I>... [occurs at] Numbers 14:8, 16:13 (exceptionally of Egypt), Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:8 (all...passages from J), 7 times in D, once in H (Leviticus 20:24), and also in Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22, Ezekiel 20:6, 15. Thomas Kelly Cheyne [1841-1915] (in <i>Encyclopaedia Biblica</I> 2104) suggests that the phrase, already conventional in the time of JE, was derived from ancient poetry, and had a mythological origin. (Gray, <I>Deuteronomy (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 145)</blockquote>
Horst Dietrich Preuss (1927-1993) analyzes:
<blockquote>The promised land is readily characterized as the “land flowing with milk and honey,” not in the references to the promises of the land in the ancestral narratives but rather in the narratives of the Moses group and then in ensuing texts (Exodus 3:8, 17 J; Exodus 13:5, 33:2ff. [early Deuteronomic]; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:27 P; Numbers 14:8 P; Numbers 16:13ff J; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 27:3, 31:20, 34:4; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22; and Ezekiel 20:6, 15). The lack of this expression in the ancestral stories points to the probable original separation of the tradition of the promise of the land to the ancestors from the tradition of the land to the Moses group. With the distinguishing feature of “land flowing with milk and honey,” the land is not portrayed as a land of the gods or painted with the colors of paradise; rather, it is described as an inhabitable land, and perhaps from the view of wandering nomads as an ideal land, so that in Numbers 16:13ff even Egypt can have this description. In Isaiah 7:15, by contrast, “milk and honey” appear as (poor?) nourishment from the viewpoint of the farmers who use the land. In addition to the promise of the land of the fathers, there is then the promise of the land to the Moses group that builds a bridge reaching unto the conquest. However, those who were rebellious, doubting, and not fully obedient to YHWH were denied entrance into the land (Numbers 13:22-33, 14:30-34, 20:12,24, 26:64ff, 32:11). Since these emphases occur especially in the Priestly and also in the Deuteronomic texts (Deuteronomy 1:35, 39ff, 2:14), the question arises as to whether this “wilderness” treats a situation analogous to the sojourn in the exile when many could not or would not trust anymore in YHWH’s guidance. (Preuss, <i>Old Testament Theology, Volume 1 (Old Testament Library)</I>, 120)</blockquote>
There are parallels to the expression “milk and honey” in other cultures. Eugene A. Carpenter (1943-2012) reveals:
<blockquote>This phrase...is closely paralleled in Ugaritc poetry. “The heavens fat did rain, The wadis flow with honey!” Milk and fat are mentioned as a blessed feature of the world ordered by Enki, who determined Sumer’s destiny. This hyperbolic metaphorical phrase stresses both the richness of Canaan and the special favor God has bestowed on it as the dwelling place for his people. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 456)</blockquote>
Walter Riggans (b. 1953) supports:
<blockquote>This phrase was used by the Greeks for the food of the gods, and, in a text from about 2,000 B.C., the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe uses it to describe Northern Galilee. But it is overwhelmingly used by the Israelites of the general area of Canaan. (Riggans, <i>Numbers (Daily Study Bible</I>, 108)</blockquote>
Milk has a decidedly positive connotation in the Old Testament; its most common usage actually occurs in connection with the idiom “milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6) .
<p><a href=http://www.fhu.edu/academics/graduate/programs/bible/faculty.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clyde M. Woods</a> (b. 1936) and <a href=http://faculty.fhu.edu/jrogers/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Justin M. Rogers</a> (b 1982) comment:
<blockquote>Milk is a figure of profusion in the Old Testament (cf. Genesis 39:12; Isaiah 7:21-22). Due to the lack of refrigeration, milk quickly became curds, which could be sopped up with bread, or churned into butter (Proverbs 30:33). (Woods, and Rogers, <i>Leviticus–Numbers (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 260)</blockquote>
Étan Levine (b. 1934) researches:
<blockquote>Biblical literature abounds with references to milk (or milk products) and honey). These are described as luxury items, gifts, articles of trade, contributions to priests and Levites, and high-energy foods used by those who camp in the wilderness. (Levine, <i>Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought</I>, 47)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bidmc.org/CentersandDepartments/Departments/Radiology/Data/ClinicalFaculty/Musculoskeletal/RonaldEisenberg.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ronald L. Eisenberg</a> (b. 1945) inventories:
<blockquote>When poetically depicting God’s gracious generosity toward the Israelites in his farewell address, Moses included “curd of kine” [butter, cream, and yogurt] and “milk of flocks” (Deuteronomy 32:14). In Song of Songs (Song of Solomon 4:11), the lover describes the sweetness of his beloved as having “milk and honey...under your tongue.” In his vision of the Messianic Age, the prophet Joel (Joel 4:18) stated that “the mountains shall drip with wine, the [Judean] hills shall flow with milk.”...Most dairy products during the biblical period were produced from the milk of sheep and goats, since there were relatively few cattle. As an important source of dietary liquid in a region where water was scarce and often contaminated, milk and dairy products were popular offerings by pagan peoples to their gods or king. The prohibition against “boiling a kind in its mother’s milk”—which is repeated three times in the Torah (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21) and is the basis for the separation of meat and milk—...may thus be the divine rejection of an ancient Canaanite religious practice. (Eisenberg, <i>Jewish Traditions (JPS Guide)</I>, 688)</blockquote>
Honey is also presented favorably in the Hebrew Scriptures. Étan Levine (b. 1934) surveys:
<blockquote>Honey itself is described as being both healthful and pleasurable, a metaphor for diverse delights and benefits such as wisdom, divine guidance, and, along with milk, sexuality. The divinely bestowed <i>manna</I> in the wilderness had the taste of honey (Exodus 16:31), for as a foodstuff, “What is sweeter than honey (Judges 14:18)?” (Levine, <i>Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought</I>, 46)</blockquote>
The honey in question may be different than most contemporary readers envision. <a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jgoldingay/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Goldingay</a> (b. 1942) clarifies:
<blockquote>The usual English phrase is “flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6], but the “honey” is not bees’ honey but syrup made from fruit such as figs, the main source of sweetness in the Middle East. (Goldingay, <i>Numbers and Deuteronomy for Everyone</i>, 36)</blockquote><a href=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Alter/Alter.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert Alter</a> (b. 1935) concurs:
<blockquote>The honey in question is probably not bee’s honey, for apiculture was not practiced in this early period, but rather a sweet syrup extracted from dates. The milk would most likely have been goat’s milk and not cow’s milk. In any case, these two synecdoches for agriculture and animal husbandry respectively become a fixed bounty of the promised land. (Alter, <i>The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary</I>, 320)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.fhu.edu/academics/graduate/programs/bible/faculty.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clyde M. Woods</a> (b. 1936) and <a href=http://faculty.fhu.edu/jrogers/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Justin M. Rogers</a> (b 1982) investigate:
<blockquote>“Honey” usually includes, in addition to bee-honey, “grape-honey,” a thick grape substance...<a href=http://ancientstudies.as.nyu.edu/page/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Baruch A. Levine</a> [b. 1930] states that the term simply means “sweetness,” and can apply broadly (his translation, “sap;” <i>Numbers</I>, p. 356)...R.K. Harrison [1920-2003] notes that honey could perhaps be used as a euphemism for a potent alcoholic mixture (<I>Numbers</I>, p. 211). However, it is unlikely that the euphemism applies here: for the combination of milk and honey is a common figure indicating abundance. (Woods, and Rogers, <i>Leviticus–Numbers (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 257, 260)</blockquote>
Walter Riggans (b. 1953) deduces:
<blockquote>It could be wild-bee or date honey, but either way the two substances were moist and sweet and in plentiful supply---symbols of peace and plenty. Not what might be expected from an area called “parched” [“Negev”; Numbers 13:17, 22,29]! (Riggans, <i>Numbers (Daily Study Bible)</I>, 108)</blockquote>
Counter-intuitively and contrary to popular belief, milk and honey may not have been staples of the Israelite diet. <a href=http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/nathan-macdonald STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Nathan MacDonald</a> (b. 1975) resolves:
<blockquote>Milk and honey features prominently in the descriptions of the Promised Land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. Yet, outside of the stereotypical phrase, milk and honey do not appear often in the Old Testament and may not have been important in the diets of most Israelites. (MacDonald, <i>What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat?: Diet in Biblical Times</I>, 11)</blockquote>
There is debate over the exact meaning of the pairing “milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27). Many have seen the foodstuffs as representative terms encompassing a spectrum, one phrase assessing the goodness of the land.
<p>Sarah Malena (b. 1974) and <a href=http://davidmiano.net/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Miano</a> (b. 1966) research:
<blockquote>The pairing of “milk and honey” evokes an image of fertility, but it is more than the fertility of flocks and groves. Ben Sira lists milk and honey among the basic necessities of life [Sirach 39:26], while the Song of Songs employs the two words in images of luxury and indulgence [Song of Solomon 4:11, 6:1]. <a href=http://history.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/propp-william.html>William H.C. Propp</a> [b. 1957]’s musings on the subject reveal the nuances of parental nourishment and comfort. And in the frequent reiteration of the divine promise one perceives the connotation of security and longevity. (Malena and Miano, <i>Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the <a href=https://judaicstudies.ucsd.edu STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Judaic Studies Program</a> at the <a href=http://ucsd.edu/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">University of California, San Diego</a></I>, ix)</blockquote>
<p>Others have seen milk and honey as representatives of larger, overarching categories.
The <i>Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</I> examines:
<blockquote>Why did milk and honey become the favored pair of items for the evocative epithet, when other options existed? Since the Bible does not itself explicate the epithet, we are left to surmise. Next to bread, milk was the most important staple in the diet of the Hebrews. A land that produced an abundance of milk had to be rich in pasturage, so by extension a picture of successful farming enters one’s imagination. Honey, valued for its sweetness rather than as a necessity of life, was rare enough to rank as a luxury. As images of desirability and abundance, therefore, these two images combine to form a picture of total satisfaction. The image of “flowing” suggests a rich fullness that surpasses all need and sets up a contrast with the arid wilderness. Perhaps they are even an example of Hebrew merism (naming opposites to cover everything between as well), suggesting the whole spectrum of food, from the necessary to the luxurious. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/R/Lee-Ryken STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leland Ryken</a> [b. 1942], <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/James-Wilhoit STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James C. Wilhoit</a> [b. 1951] and <a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952], <i>Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</I>, 488)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-staff/bruce-wells-phd STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce Wells</a> (b. 1968) inquires:
<blockquote>Exactly what kind of prosperity does the biblical expression refer to? It probably does not refer to the most common forms of agriculture, such as the cultivation of grains. Rather, the “milk” likely refers to animal husbandry and the use of animal byproducts for food and clothing. Sheep were important for their wool and meat, but goats may have been more important. They provide twice as much milk as sheep, and their hair and hides could be used for tents, clothing carpets, and even satchels for holding liquids. The “honey” refers to horticulture—the cultivation of fruits and vegetables. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 174)</blockquote>
Étan Levine (b. 1934) counters:
<blockquote>Contrary to popular interpretation, biblical diction paired “milk and honey” <i>not</I> because of their gastronomical affinity but because both are products of identical topographical and economic conditions. In biblical Palestine as elsewhere, both milk and honey are <i>not</I> products of fertile, cultivated farmlands, but of uncultivated grazing areas. The flocks and herds feed on wild growth, on land unsuitable for agriculture. And it is there, amidst the thickets, bushes and wild flowers, that honey is also found. (Levine, <i>Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought</I>, 46)</blockquote>
Some have seen the two elements as indicative of the distinct geography of the northern and southern portions of Israel. The <i>Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</I> speculates:
<blockquote>Milk...appears in the frequently mentioned formula used to describe the Promised Land, “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 3:17, 13:5, 33:3, et al.). As the Israelite spies spent years in a trackless wilderness, the description certainly provided an inviting picture of the Promised Land. But it may also be a descriptor that honors the distinct differences between the northern and southern sections of Canaan. Because the north receives more rain, there is considerably more vegetation that provides flowers for the bees to use in making honey. In contrast the south receives considerably less rain, so we find agriculture giving way to the pastoral life and the goat’s milk that was a staple in the Israelite diet. Thus the diverse nature of the Promised Land is captured in this expression by naming two important commodities associated with it subregions. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-a-beck/37/430/9a7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John A. Beck</a> [b. 1956], <i>Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</i>)</blockquote>
This proposition seems unlikely as the later division between the southern and northern kingdoms was unwanted. At this point, an image of solidarity was preferable if not necessary; an advancing army must be unified.
<p>Others have seen the land as evoking paradise. <a href=http://www.bethbc.org/academics/faculty/dr-salim-j-munayer STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Salim J. Munayer</a> (b. 1955) argues:
<blockquote>More than simply indicating fertile soil, in the context of the biblical world, milk and honey were also used to describe the otherworldly richness of paradise. Indeed, in many ancient Near Eastern traditions, “the image of an ideal place flowing with milk and honey has long been associated with paradise.” Even in Islam we find traces of this association; for example the paradise described by Allah in the Qur’an is depicted as “the eternal garden of joy...[and it] possesses not only rivers of pure water and wine, but ‘rivers of fresh milk’ and ‘rivers of pure honey.’”...Given the context from which it arose and what we have learned about merism phrases, there is reason to doubt the mention of a land flowing with milk and honey is making a reference to an earthly place at all. The land of Canaan already had certain very specific and known elements associated with it—the famous <i>Seven Species</I> of Deuteronomy 8:8, where Canaan is described as “a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig tress [sic], pomegranates, olive oil and honey.”...It makes more sense to think of this phrase as a literary, poetic description of an idyllic paradise, rather than a specific location on earth. There are radical implications to this interpretation when applied to all the many places in the Scriptures where we find this phrase [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. However, when we remember the universal nature of God’s promise, it is clear: The land flowing with milk and honey is not Canaan or Egypt or any other terrestrial place; it is a future return to the garden as the fulfillment of God’s promises. (Munayer and <a href=http://www.nazarethseminary.org/faculty.php?eventid=48 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lisa Loden</a>, “Theology of the Land: From a Land of Strife to a Land of Reconciliation”, <i>The Land Cries Out: Theology of the Land in the Israeli-Palestinian Context</i>, 252-53)</blockquote>
There has also been discussion as to whether Canaan’s land is as arable as the spies’ depiction (Numbers 13:25-27). Later pilgrims could not help but notice discrepancy.
<p>Lester I. Vogel (b. 1948) documents:
<blockquote>Confronted with the reality of Ottoman Palestine, it was easy to turn from the present to the past, as <a href=http://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/C0909 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clara E. Waters</a> [1834-1916] had done. Likewise, it was easier to explain the reality in sweeping, universal terms. Nathaniel Clark Burt [1825-1874] saw Palestine’s condition as epitomizing the geography of the world in its diversity, thereby affording the former peoples of the country a chance to be representative of humanity and to produce “a revelation with wide, varied, universal adaptations.” To Burt, the Holy Land was dreary and desolate, especially in the context of the biblical passage that advertised the land as luxuriantly flowing with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8; Numbers 13:27]. But Burt imagined that the land had been good in ages past, that “it requires little observation and reflection, on the part of the traveler in Palestine, to perceive that the country possesses great natural capabilities and must, at a former period, have sustained an immense population.” When Burt recalled that the land’s present condition fulfilled scriptural prediction exactly, he showed more interest in the spectacle of the land’s desolation than he did in evidences of prosperity. (Vogel, <i>To See A Promised Land: Americans and the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century</I>, 74)</blockquote>
There is ancient support for a fertile Canaan. <a href=http://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-staff/bruce-wells-phd STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce Wells</a> (b. 1968) presents:
<blockquote>The expression evokes the image of a prosperous land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. The Egyptian Story of Sinuhe (from the Twelfth Dynasty, early second millennium B.C.) also describes the land of Canaan as prosperous: “It was a wonderful land called Yaa. There were cultivated figs in it and grapes, and more wine than water. Its honey was abundant, and its olive trees numerous. On its trees were all varieties of fruit. There was barley and emmer, and there was no end to all the varieties of cattle.” But the land seems not to have been consistently prosperous; several biblical texts refer to famine in Canaan (Genesis 12:10, 26:1, 43:1). Biblical texts describe the blessing of Yahweh as the determining factor. When he wished for there to be prosperity, there was. Ugaritic texts present a similar perspective: When there was divine blessing—in their case, from Baal—then “the heavens rain oil/the wadis run with honey.” (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 174)</blockquote>
The rabbinic writing also corroborates the biblical witness. Fred Rosner (b. 1935) apprises:
<blockquote>The Bible repeatedly asserts that Israel is “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 3:17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:27, 14:8, 16:13, 16:14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 26:15, 27:3, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22; Ezekiel 20:6, 20:15). This divine blessing is depicted in the Talmud (Ketubot 11b) where it states that Rabbi ben Ezekiel [220-299] once paid a visit to <a href=http://goisrael.com/tourism_eng/tourist%20information/discover%20israel/cities/Pages/bnei%20brak.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bnei Berak</a> where he saw goats grazing under fig trees and honey was flowing from the figs and milk ran from the goats and the honey and milk mingled with each other. Rabbah bar Bar Hannah said: “I saw the flow of the milk and honey in all the land of Israel and the total area was equal to the land extending from the Be Mikse to the Fort of Tulbanke, an area of twenty-two parasangs in length and six parasangs in breadth.” Here and elsewhere (Megillah 6a), Resh Lakish [third century CE] said that he saw the flow of milk and honey at Sepphoris and it extended over an area of sixteen by sixteen miles. (Rosner, <i>Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud: Selections from Classical Jewish Sources</I>, 115)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=648 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacob Neusner</a> (b. 1932) bolsters:
<blockquote>R. Ammi bar Ezekiel visited <a href=http://goisrael.com/tourism_eng/tourist%20information/discover%20israel/cities/Pages/bnei%20brak.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bene Beraq</a>. He saw goats grazing under fig trees, with honey flowing from the figs, and milk running from the goats, and the honey and the milk mingled. He said, “That is in line with ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (Exodus 3:8; Numbers 13:27).” Said R. Jacob b. Dosetai, “From Lud to Ono is three Roman miles. Once I got up early at down [sic] and I walked up to my ankles in fig honey.” Said R Simeon b. Laqish [third century CE], “I personally saw the flood of milk and honey of Sepphoris, and it extended over sixteen square miles.” Said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, “I personally saw the flood of milk and honey of the entirety of the Land of Israel, and it extended from Be Mikse to the Fort of Tulbanqi, twenty-two parasangs long, six parasangs wide.” (Neusner, <i>Theological Dictionary of Rabbinic Judaism, Part One: Principal Theological Categories</I>, 113)</blockquote>
While the Bible lauds the Promised Land it also acknowledges its shortcomings. <a href=http://cjcuc.com/site/staff/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene Korn</a> (b. 1947) recalls:
<blockquote>While the Bible describes the Land of Israel as “a land of milk and honey” (Deuteronomy 31:20) and “a good land, a land with streams and springs and fountains issuing from plain and hill; a land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates; a land of olive trees and honey (Deuteronomy 8:7-8), Scripture also points out on numerous occasions that this land forces its inhabitants to recognize God by increasing the Jewish people’s dependency on God and on fulfilling the covenant. (Korn, <i>The Jewish Connection to Israel, the Promised Land: A Brief Introduction for Christians</I>, 8)</blockquote>
Comparatively speaking, Canaan fits the bill as the land is undoubtedly an upgrade over the wilderness in which the Israelites are presently residing. <a href=http://ag.arizona.edu/ento/faculty/buchmann.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen Buchmann</a> (b. 1952) appraises:
<blockquote>To people living in a harsh desert climate, a lush green landscape must have fit their idea of paradise. The pastures of this rich, well-watered paradise would be dotted with contented cows grazing on succulent grass and producing fresh, wholesome milk; the meadows would be filled with wildflowers buzzing with bees as they collected nectar and pollen to transform into golden honey. It’s no mystery why milk and honey became symbols for the Jews of a blessed land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. (Buchmann, <i>Letters from the Hive: An Intimate History of Bees, Honey, and Humankind</I>, 124)</blockquote>
Étan Levine (b. 1934) recognizes:
<blockquote>To the homeless Israelites who were poised to take it, the Holy Land was perceived as being a “very, very good land” [Numbers 14:7], a “blessed land” [Deuteronomy 33:13], for realistically speaking, one could hardly expect a different reaction from a horde of landless wanderers! It is also true that no less than fifteen times in the Pentateuch and five times thereafter, the Promised Land is described as “a land flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that biblical exegetes, from the ancient commentators to modern scholars, have understood this phrase as an obvious metaphor extolling the lush fecundity of the land assigned to the People of Israel. (Levine, <i>Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought</I>, 46)</blockquote>
<a href=http://nccu.academia.edu/DavidLorenzo STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David J. Lorenzo</a> (b. 1961) compares:
<blockquote>The characteristics of the Promised Land would be the obverse of those of Egypt and the wilderness, representing a transcendence of both. Unlike Egypt, the Promised Land would be the Hebrews’ own. Rather than working as slaves, they would live as a free people. And unlike the wilderness, it would be a rich land, one “flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. There the Hebrews would have no need of Yahweh’s provision of material food in the form of manna, nor spiritual food in the form of Moses’ leadership. They would be free and self-determining within the boundaries of the Covenant. (Lorenzo, <i>Tradition and the Rhetoric of Right: Popular Political Argument in the Aurobindo Movement</I>, 157)</blockquote>
<a href=http://margaretfeinberg.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Margaret Feinberg</a> (b. 1976) praises:
<blockquote>Nearly two dozen references throughout the Old Testament describe the Promised Land as a place “flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]...The promise that the land would overflow with “milk” suggests abundant pastureland for goats and cows while the mention of “honey” implies that the land was abounding in flowers and grass. Such a detailed portrait of a promise reveals something about the outrageously generous heart of God. He didn’t just want to end slavery for his people. He wanted to bring them out of the land entirely and into a new place that overflowed with provision. (Feinberg, <i>Scouting the Divine: My Search for God in Wine, Wool, and Wild Honey</i>)</blockquote>
Whatever the specific connotation “milk and honey” indicates, generally speaking, the land is good. <a href=http://www.firstbaptistlacrosse.org/biography.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Timothy R. Ashley</a> (b. 1947) assesses:
<blockquote>These verses [Numbers 13:27-29] are probably a summary of the spies’ report. The general report was that the land was very good: <i>it flows with milk and honey</I> (<i>zābat-hālāb ûdebaš hî</I>). Although Numbers 13:27ff concentrate on the report to Moses (<i>they recounted it to him</I>, Numbers 13:27), the text makes clear that the report was in the hearing of the whole congregation (Numbers 13:26). (Ashley, <i>The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 239)</blockquote>
The idiom “milk and honey” serves as a powerful, concise slogan to motivate the people (Numbers 13:27). <a href=http://www.ost.edu/OblateSite/OSTFaculty/sherwoods.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen K. Sherwood</a> (b. 1943) acknowledges:
<blockquote>The familiar image of a land flowing not with water but with milk and honey has a strong rhetorical effect. (<i>Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</i>, 78)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.jonathankirsch.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jonathan Kirsch</a> (b. 1949) remarks:
<blockquote>Moses...had not been elected by anyone except an unheard and unseen God, and so far God has not deigned to speak to anyone other than Moses and his brother. Yet Moses had urged them out of the relative safety and comfort of Egypt into an empty and threatening wilderness, all on a vague promise that someday they would reach a distant land of “milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20]. Such rhetoric had surely been heard before among the poor and oppressed, and history assures us that it would be heard again and again through the centuries. (Kirsch, <i>Moses: A Life</i>, 219)</blockquote>
The phrasing provides concrete imagery of a better place. <a href=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Alter/Alter.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert Alter</a> (b. 1935) envisions:
<blockquote>Beyond well-watered Egypt and the burning desert where uncanny fires flare, the new Israelite nation is repeatedly told of a third space, a land flowing not with water but, hyperbolically, with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. This utopian space will be beyond reach for forty years, and in a sense it can never be fully attained. When the twelve spies enter it on a reconnaissance mission in Numbers, they confirm its fabulous fecundity [Numbers 13:25-27], but ten of twelve also deem it unconquerable [Numbers 13:31-33], calling it “a land that consumes its inhabitants” [Numbers 13:32]. As the biblical story continues through Numbers and Deuteronomy and ultimately on to the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel the land flowing with milk and honey will begin to seem something like the Land of Cockaigne of medieval European folklore, a dream of delighted, unimpeded fulfillment beyond the grating actualities of real historical time. (Alter, <i>The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary</I>, 303)</blockquote>
Despite its prominence in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6), the phrase “milk and honey” does not recur in the New Testament.
<p><a href=http://www.bbk.ac.uk/art-history/staff/teaching-staff/janes STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dominic Janes</a> notes:
<blockquote>J. Duncan M. Derrett [1922-2012] (1984) points out that the ‘land of milk and honey’ (Exodus 3:8-17 and Exodus 13:5) vanishes from the Christian tradition even as allegory. (Janes, <i>God and Gold in Late Antiquity</I>, 153).</blockquote>
The Promised Land gives the enslaved and later wandering Israelites a concept of a better future residence that provides a beacon of hope. It serves much the same function that heaven does to contemporary believers.
<p><a href=http://leadnet.org/staff/reggie-mcneal/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Reggie McNeal</a> (b. 1955) relates:
<blockquote>The central act of God in the Old Testament is the Exodus, a divine intervention into human history to liberate his people from oppression and slavery. The decisive act of the New Testament is the divine intervention of God into human history to liberate his people from oppression and slavery...In both cases the deliverance is not just <i>from</I> something but <i>to</I> something. The Hebrew slaves were destined for the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. Jesus promised his followers abundant life [John 10:10]. Included in that deal is heaven. (McNeal, <i>The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church</I>, 12-13)</blockquote>
John M. Shackleford (b. 1929) correlates:
<blockquote>We can certainly identify with the Israelites wandering in the desert. It symbolizes our own travels through life, searching for the “Promised Land.” The Promised Land, the land of Canaan, is also an important symbol of all our hopes for the future. To me, the Land of Promise is symbolic of the spiritual dimension I look toward as a final goal. If this life on earth is a time of preparation, which I believe to be the case, then the Promised Land is the final goal of that preparation. It is a symbol for heaven, a spiritual dimension of happiness with our creator. (Shackleford, <i>God as Symbol: What Our Beliefs Tell Us</I>, 36)</blockquote>
The Promised Land is the future home of the Israelite nation. As few of them have any frame of reference to it, Moses enlists members from each tribe to survey its contents (Numbers 13:3-16). When they come back, the tag line “flowing with milk and honey” captures the imagination and instills resolve that a better home awaits (Numbers 13:27). Contemporary Christians hold a similar belief: There is always hope for a better tomorrow.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why does God evoke the peculiar combination of “milk and honey” to encapsulate the Promised Land (Exodus 3:8)? Would the epithet have been different for a another group of people? What would the combination of milk and honey look like? What is the modern equivalent of a land “flowing with milk and honey”? What two resources would epitomize your ideal land; what items would use to categorize a land as very good? Where is your land of milk and honey?</font>
<p>The good news is that the land is indeed good (Numbers 13:25-27). But there is a problem. It is not the quality of the region but rather the inhabitants of the land (Numbers 13:28-29). The spies return with both a majority and minority report: Though they agree on the goodness of the land, they disagree on the proper course of action (Numbers 13:25-29).
<p><a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1955&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Katharine Doob Sakenfeld</a> (b. 1940) reports:
<blockquote>The spies return with their report to the leaders and the people. According to Numbers 13:25-29 they are agreed about the marvelous productivity of the land, which they describe as “flowing with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27); and all are agreed about the strength of the inhabitants and the strong fortification of their towns [Numbers 13:28-29]. They are divided, however, as to the appropriate course of action. Caleb proposes to take the land at once [Numbers 13:30]. The others consider the task impossible and reinforce their conclusion by describing the Israelites as like grasshoppers compared to the huge people who live in that land “that devours its inhabitants” (Numbers 13:33). The image of a devouring land may be intended to dramatize the power of human forces living in Canaan, or it may be a reversal of the earlier claim about the fruitfulness of the area. In any case, the recommendation against proceeding to the land is evident. (Sakenfeld, <i>Numbers: Journeying with God (International Theological Commentary)</I>, 85-86)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.cst.edu/academics/faculty/profile/rolf-knierim/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rolf P. Knierim</a> (b. 1928) and George W. Coats (1936-2006) dissect:
<blockquote>The weight of a spy report falls on the report produced by the mission. The spies return from their mission and make their reports to Moses and the people (Numbers 13:26). The report has two forms: (a) The land flows with milk and honey (Numbers 13:27). It thus corresponds to the promised land from the tradition (→Exodus 3:8). The expression, a way to emphasize the fertility of the land, is a typical epithet for the land and thus points to the position of the tradition about the fertile land in popular lore [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. (b) The people are strong and large. The descendants of Anak are there [Numbers 13:28, 33]. The cities are fortified. And the result is a self-description that constitutes a firm example of a frightened resignation. The spies name themselves grasshoppers (Numbers 13:33). The report is thus both good and bad. (Knierim and Coats, <i>Numbers (Forms of the Old Testament Literature)</I>, 186)</blockquote>
The discrepancy is embodied in two references in the spies’ report (Numbers 13:27, 32). <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/diane-m-sharon/15/a64/47 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Diane M. Sharon</a> (b. 1948) connects:
<blockquote>The association of “a land flowing with milk and honey” in Numbers 13:27 with its antithesis, a land devouring its settlers in Numbers 13:32, also recalls the Lord’s desire to withdraw from personally leading the people to the ‘land flowing with milk and honey’ ודבש חלב זבת ארץ בדרך אכלך after the debacle of the golden calf, ‘lest I devour you on the way’ פן־ בדרך אכלך
(Exodus 33:3). The metaphoric allusion in Exodus 33 to a connection between the land of milk and honey and the death of the people on the way is concretized and made explicit in the narrative of Numbers 13:1-14:45. But just as Moses intercedes successfully on behalf of the people in Exodus 33:12-17, so, too, his intercession in Numbers 14:11-38 mitigates the Lord’s wrath. (Sharon, <i>Patterns of Destiny: Narrative Structures of Foundation and Doom in the Hebrew Bible</I>, 204)</blockquote>
Unfortunately the bad news overshadows the good (Numbers 13:25-33). <a href=http://www.nobts.edu/faculty/atoh/ColeRD/Default.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Dennis Cole</a> (b. 1950) tracks:
<blockquote>The essential question regarding the land was whether it was good (<i>hătôbâ</I>) or bad (<i>’im-rā‘a</I>). When the scouts returned, they described the land as good, describing it as flowing with milk and honey [Numbers 13:27], a key phrase used throughout the Old Testament to characterize the quality and productivity of the Promised Land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. The tenor of the report, however, suddenly shifted from one of prospective prosperity to one of foreboding fear as the majority of the scouts announced the seeming insurmountability of the people and their heavily fortified cities (Numbers 13:28-29). This fear turned to rebellion when they described the land in terms of death, hence evil or bad, and described a potential return to Egypt as “good” (Numbers 13:31-14:4). (Cole, <i>Numbers (New American Commentary)</I>, 210)</blockquote>
<a
href=http://www.westernsem.edu/about/faculty-staff/?wts-fs-id=8110 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. Stubbs</a> (b. 1964) laments:
<blockquote>The scouts return and give their report. They show the people the fruit of the land [Numbers 13:23], and their first words are that the land indeed “flows with milk adn honey” (Numbers 13:27)—that is, excellent for grazing milk-giving animals and filled with bees: a perfect land for people like the Israelites. But their concern and anxiety quickly overshadow their initial positive vision, as is apparent in their lengthy rehearsal of the inhabitants of the land—a traditional list of the peoples who lived in Canaan [Numbers 13:28-29]. (Stubbs, <i>Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 128-29)</blockquote>
Modern psychological assessments of Moses have often concurred with the negative majority report, depicting the Promised Land as the leader’s unattainable conquest. <a href=http://ila.emory.edu/home/people/faculty/paul.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert A. Paul</a> analyzes:
<blockquote>If, as the midrashic tradition holds, the longing for Egypt was a longing for “incestuous unions”...then these scenes could be analyzed as representing a longing for the mother in whom the nurturant and erotic functions are as yet undifferentiated. Cast out from incestuous Egypt by virtue of the guilt incurred through rebellious patricide, Moses pursues the unattainable chimera of the “promised land flowing with milk and honey,” which will always remain out of reach [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20] . (Paul, <i>Moses and Civilization: The Meaning Behind Sigmund Freud [1856-1939]’s Myth</I>, 105)</blockquote>
A subtle, yet critical, clue to the spies’ bias is concealed in their opening statement. <a href=http://66.165.137.122/faculty_staff/fulltime/boyce.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard N. Boyce</a> (b. 1955) notices:
<blockquote>Their report starts out well enough, though they show some confusion as to who has sent them (“you” the congregation, versus “You,” God; Numbers 13:27). (Boyce, <i>Leviticus and Numbers (Westminster Biblical Companion)</I>, 159)</blockquote>
It is God, not the congregation, who has sent the spies to investigate the land (Numbers 13:1-2). Concurrently, it will be God, not the congregation, who will secure the land. Omitting or forgetting God’s involvement in their mission is telling.
<p>Further, God’s promise is the land, not a life of ease in the Promised Land. The promise is opportunity.
<p><a href=http://www.rel.tcu.edu/faculty_gunn.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David M. Gunn</a> (b. 1942) considers:
<blockquote>Yahweh is the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” [Exodus 3:6]; he has heard their cry, seen their suffering, and will deliver them out of Egypt into land flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:6-8, 15-17). Yahweh has seen suffering, affliction and oppression. But if he acts out of simple compassion, we are not told so. Nor is the emphasis of the speech upon the <u>alleviation</u> of the suffering (though the alleviation of course is implied). Rather the keynote is the covenantal promise of <u>land</u>, a land of milk and honey, and so perhaps a land in which to flourish. (<a href=https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/theology/people/clines STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David J.A. Clines</a> [b. 1938], Gunn and <a href=http://philrel.appstate.edu/research-publications/faculty-publications/dr-alan-hauser>Alan J. Hauser</a> [b. 1945], <i>Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature</i>, “The ‘Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart”: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14”, 82)</blockquote>
Acquiring the land will take effort. <a href=http://www.wchurch.tv/calvinmiller/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Calvin Miller</a> (1936-2012) empathizes:
<blockquote>For generations God told Israel he would give them Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. It sounded good until they went to pick up the gift and discovered people were already living in Canaan. So the gift required a great deal of effort from Israel. It is in this same sense that God gives us eternal life, only to have us discover that we must work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12) and faithfully discipline ourselves to make our lives really count for God. (Miller, <i>Fruit of the Spirit: Faithfulness: Cultivating Spirit-Given Character</i>)</blockquote>
The Israelites’ greatest obstacle will not be the land’s inhabitants, regardless of their size. <a href=http://66.165.137.122/faculty_staff/fulltime/boyce.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard N. Boyce</a> (b. 1955) concludes:
<blockquote>God knows the greatest threat to this mission is not the people and the walled cities of this land of milk and honey, no matter how well “fortified” (Numbers 13:19). No, the greatest threat to the forward motion of this story is the fear ever welling up in the hearts of these travelers. God’s people were and still are more proficient at sitting and wailing, than at marching and praising. (Boyce, <i>Leviticus and Numbers (Westminster Biblical Companion)</I>, 156)</blockquote>
Despite the consensus that the land is suitable, the negative report represents the majority opinion (Numbers 13:25-33). Consequently, the spies’ report ultimately reveals more about themselves than the land. The Israelites choose to focus on the heavily fortified armies rather than the heavenly promised land. As is often the case, the bad news proves easier to believe. The spies’ report serves as a reminder that nothing must overshadow the good news of God.
<p><font color="#66CD00">How would you have received the spies’ report (Numbers 13:25-33); what stands out to you? What more could the Israelites have asked for? Have you ever forgotten to factor God into your life’s equation? When have you struggled to characterize something as either inherently good or evil? When has bad news overshadowed the good?</font>
<p>“Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted.” - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), Victor of WaterlooChandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-43367167256567423662014-09-19T15:00:00.000-07:002014-09-19T15:00:03.835-07:00The Unknown God (Acts 17:23)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zTKNDfl1iiA/VBoFW__QMOI/AAAAAAAAI7o/vEiEWuRQ_Ec/s1600/UnknownGod.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241.333" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zTKNDfl1iiA/VBoFW__QMOI/AAAAAAAAI7o/vEiEWuRQ_Ec/s320/UnknownGod.jpg" /></a></div><b>In what city did Paul proclaim Jesus to be the “Unknown God”? Athens (Acts 17:23)</b>
<p>In one of the few episodes in which Paul is seen traveling alone, the apostle engages philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). He observes the city’s many idols and joins an ongoing theological discussion with a wide variety of participants including Jews, God-fearers, Epicureans and Stoics (Acts 17:16-21). Having piqued their interest, Paul stands to address the Athenians at the Areopagus (or Mars Hill), the center of Greek religiosity (Acts 17:22). The missionary famously seizes on a statue he had seen dedicated to an “unknown god”. (Acts 17:23).
<p>Paul begins his speech by acknowledging that the audience is “religious” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “superstitious” (KJV) or that they “take...religion seriously” (MSG) (Acts 17:22).
<p>Notably, Paul takes a positive approach. Stuart H. Merriam (1924-2011) affirms:
<blockquote>In his opening remarks Paul reminded his audience of how religious they were and how he had noticed a statue with th inscription, <i>agnosto theo</I>, “to the unknown God” (Acts 17:23). This opened the way for Paul to declare the true God [Acts 17:24-31]. Wisely he did not denounce Athenian idolatry which would only have closed the minds of his hearers to his message. Paul was no iconoclast. He felt commendation was always better than condemnation. Provide the powerful antidote of the gospel, and in time and in its own way it would cleanse and reform society. (Merriam, <i>Paul the Apostle: At the Edge by Faith</I>, 105)</blockquote>
Paul intentionally opts not to begin his address by pushing his own beliefs (Scripture) or attacking the Athenians’ views (idolatry). Instead he seeks common ground.
<p><a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/timothygeorge_1 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Timothy George</a> (b. 1950) recognizes:
<blockquote>Significantly, Paul did not begin his discourse by bashing the “false gods” of the Athenians, though elsewhere his preaching did result in iconoclastic riots (see Acts 19:23-41). He began instead by identifying that which was missing in the religious worldview of his conversation partners. The fact that the Athenians had built an altar to “an unknown god” (Acts 17:23) indicated that there was a real, if unfelt, sense of inadequacy, that Paul could address with the positive content of the Christian gospel. He did this by pointing precisely to the two places where God has made himself known to every person of every religious tradition, namely, the <i>created order</I> [Acts 17:24-26] and the <i>human conscience</I> [Acts 17:27-29]. He showed great sensitivity in quoting, not the inspired Old Testament, as he always did when speaking to Jews, but the pagan poets who were familiar to the Greeks [Acts 17:28]...He did not hesitate to use..non-Christian sources in his evangelistic appeal. But neither did he stop with this acknowledgment of common ground. (George, <i>Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?: Understanding the Differences Between Christianity and Islam</I>, 74)</blockquote>
Paul neither attacks the Athenians nor condescends because he has knowledge to which they are not yet privy. <a href=http://willwillimon.wordpress.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William H. Willimon</a> (b. 1946) reminds:
<blockquote>When we proclaim the good news to the world, we do not claim that people who have not heard this news are bad people. They simply are those who have not heard this news. (Willimon, <i>Peculiar Speech: Preaching to the Baptized</I>, 89)</blockquote>
Not all have read the apostle’s opening remarks as accolades (Acts 17:22). <a href=http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=27824 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Christoph W. Stenschke</a> (b. 1966) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>F. Gerald Downing [b. 1935], ‘Freedom from the Law in Luke-Acts’ suggests that even according to some of the philosophic reasoning of the time the Athenians are far from truly religious: ‘Δεισιδαιμονεστέρους [“very religious”, Acts 17:22 NASB] may be an ironic remark that the Athenians are assuming something senseless in their supposition that an unknown deity would claim worship from anybody (senseless even in non-Christian standards), this concept would be a prime example of superstition [Acts 17:22-23]. What God, if he were one at all, would be content to be unknown and to receive such little attention? (49)...Observance becomes superstition when it suggests that God or gods demand some action that does no good to the community or the individual worshipper. Thus an unidentified God would not have an area of competence, therefore no benefits would accrue from proper worship (50). The idea that a deity will quickly take offence if the ritual is not punctiliously observed is impious...The Athenians with their (supposed) worry about offending a (supposed) unknown god are superstitious in this way’. Cf. also Polybius [200-118 BCE]’s assessment of superstition and his theory of its origin in Rome (<i>The Histories</I> VI.56): ‘...the Romans have adopted these practices for the sake of the common people...the ancients were by no means acting foolishly or haphazardly when they introduced to the people various notions concerning the gods and belief in the punishments of Hades...’, quoted according to <i>Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire: Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert [1917-1989], Selected with an Introduction by F.W. Walbank [1909-2008]</I>, <a href=http://www.penguinclassics.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Penguin Classics</a> (Harmondsworth: <a href=http://www.penguin.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Penguin</a>, 1979), 349, cf. XVI.12.3-11; Walbank’s introduction, pp. 24f; <a href=http://egora.uni-muenster.de/ijd/personen/siegert.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Folker Siegert</a> [b. 1947], <i>Kommentar</I>, 311. (Stenschke, <i>Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith</I>, 211)</blockquote>
The Athenians’ religiosity opens a door for the apostle (Acts 17:22-23). <a href=http://www.gty.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John MacArthur</a> (b. 1939) assesses:
<blockquote>The Athenians had taken the first step toward knowing God in that they were supernaturalists [Acts 17:22]. It is obviously impossible for those who deny God’s existence to know Him, since “he who comes to God must believe that He is” (Hebrews 11:6). No one will search for a path to a destination they believe does not exist. And they must have believed there was a god (among all their deities) whom they did not know [Acts 17:23]. (MacArthur, <i>Acts 13-28</I>, 132)</blockquote>
Paul’s ministry in Athens is unique (Acts 17:16-34), not only because he travels alone, but because he speaks to a very different audience than he typically addresses. In some ways the philosophers are more educated than the average congregant; teaching them would be much like the difference between preaching in a church and a seminary in contemporary society. Still, in other ways, this assembly is far more ignorant as they are unfamiliar with the Hebrew scriptures. This presents its own unique set of challenges.
<p><a href=http://www.robertbellah.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert N. Bellah</a> (1927-2013) observes:
<blockquote>There is only one point in the New Testament, as far as I know, when the Gospel is preached to those entirely lacking in knowledge of the scriptures (most of the gentiles to whom Paul preached were among the sympathizers of the synagogue, so that Paul could presume what <a href=http://divinity.yale.edu/george-lindbeck-1946-bd-1955-phd STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George Lindbeck</a> [b. 1923] calls “biblical literacy”), and that is Paul’s famous address on the Areopagus [Acts 17:16-34]...In order to preach Jesus Christ and him crucified [I Corinthians 2:2] to the biblically illiterate Athenians, Paul must convince them of the fundamentally Jewish notion of a creator God who is Lord of all and who will bring the world to an end in a last judgment [Acts 17:24-31]. Only in that context does the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ make sense. (Bellah and <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/tipton.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Steven M. Tipton</a> [b. 1946], <i>The Robert Bellah Reader</I> 480)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66210 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mikeal C. Parsons</a> (b. 1957) and Richard I. Pervo (b. 1942) assert:
<blockquote>The audience may be ignorant, but their ignorance is far from invincible. No blindness has utterly corrupted pagan hearts, as Paul presently demonstrates. In due course he comes to the claim that all people descend from one person fashioned by God (Acts 17:26). A scrap of pagan poetry, “We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:28) serves as the text. As in chapter 14, this is linked to an argument from the phenomena of nature [Acts 14:15], one which now explicitly buttresses the justification of a world mission by claiming descent from the one God. (Parsons and Pervo, <i>Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts</I>, 98)</blockquote>
Though he must begin where his audience is at, their shortcomings do not impede Paul. <a href=http://www.shef.ac.uk/biblicalstudies/people/alexander STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Loveday Alexander</a> advises:
<blockquote>Accepting the reality of our audience’s conceptions doesn’t mean being bound by their limitations. Paul has to start by expanding his listeners’ view of God. (Alexander, <i>Acts: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer (Daily Bible Commentary)</I>, 136)</blockquote>
Paul actually uses the Athenians’ ignorance to his advantage. G.C. Berkouwer (1903-1996) exposes:
<blockquote>Their unusual respect for deities is marked in that they leave not even the unknown deity unworshipped [Acts 17:23]. There was a strange paradox here. Worship assumes at least some knowledge, at least of the existence of the god. Paul makes use of this contradiction: “What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you” (Acts 17:23). He comes to grips with the pseudo-religion of the Athenians by way of this altar. He does not mean to complete what they already possess of true religion. On the contrary, what the Athenians acknowledge as ignorance has a far deeper meaning for Paul. He makes contact with the Greek mind by way of the altar and the unknown god; but his point of contact is the ignorance of the Greeks. And he sees this ignorance more profoundly than the Athenians’ own acknowledgment of it would agree to. He calls the Athenians to conversion from this ignorance; to them it is a sign of real religion [Acts 17:24-31]. (Berkouwer, <i>Studies in Dogmatics: General Revelation</I>, 143)</blockquote>
Like all good speakers, Paul identifies his audience and adapts his strategy accordingly. Gerhard A. Krodel (1926-2005) informs:
<blockquote>The climactic speech of Paul’s missionary career to Gentiles has become the subject of much debate [Acts 17:22-31]. Martin Dibelius [1883-1947], whose brilliant study of this speech has greatly advanced our understanding, concluded that “the Areopagus speech is absolutely foreign to Paul’s theology, that it is in fact foreign to the entire New Testament.” (Krodel, <i>Acts (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 327)</blockquote>
Instead of his usual approach, Paul plays the part of a Greek philosopher. <a href=http://nickpage.co.uk STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Nick Page</a> (b. 1961) explains:
<blockquote>Paul is doing his best to be a sophisticated Athenian orator and not a provincial religious zealot. He never mentions Jesus by name. He talks about ‘the God who made the world and everything in it’ [Acts 17:24]. He even quotes from Greek poets: first from the sixth-century BC poet Epimenides [Acts 17:28] and then from Aratus of Soli in Cilicia [271-213 BCE], a third-century BC Stoic [Acts 17:28]. He does what good missionaries and evangelists have always done: he uses the language, the style and the cultural references familiar to his audience. (Page, <i>Kingdom of Fools: The Unlikely Rise of the Early Church</i>)</blockquote>
George A. Kennedy (b. 1928) agrees:
<blockquote>In terms that would be comprehensible to Stoics...Paul’s usual techniques of proof are adapted to a Greek audience...If Paul actually delivered a speech like this, he made a remarkable effort to carry the gospel to the gentiles in terms they might have understood. (Kennedy, <i>New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism</I>, 130-131)</blockquote>
<a href=http://bgst.edu.sg/faculty/36-dr-philip-e-satterthwaite STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip E. Satterthwaite</a> concurs:
<blockquote>Paul’s speech in Acts 17:22-32 emerges as a textbook example of a deliberate speech: proem (Acts 17:22, seeking to secure audience goodwill) narration (Acts 17:23a, giving background); division (again a single proposition: I will tell you of this God you worship as unknown, Acts 17:23b); demonstration (God as incomparably greater than idols, Acts 17:24-29); peroration (Proverbs 17:30-31). As Robert Morgenthaler [b. 1918] notes, this is a speech appropriate to one of the rhetorical centres of the Graeco-Roman world. (Bruce W. Winter [b. 1939] and <a href=http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sdhp/people/profiles/a.d.clarke STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andrew D. Clarke</a>, “Acts Against the Background of Classic Rhetoric”, <i>The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting</I>, 360)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.lpts.edu/about/faculty/full-time-faculty/marion-l-soards STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marion L. Soards</a> (b. 1952) differentiates:
<blockquote>Instead of preaching the “latest novelty,” Paul takes shrewd line as he addresses his hearers—he starts by referring to one of their own religious shrines, an altar “to the unknown god” [Acts 17:23]. In his proclamation Paul is unlike Socrates [470-399 BCE], for he advocates nothing new; rather he clarifies the identity of the creator God (a deity that the Stoics would have known about) and ultimately relates the God of creation (who also sustains the world) to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:18, 31). (<a href=http://loyno.edu/~richard/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Earl Richard</a> [b. 1940], “The Historical and Cultural Setting of Luke-Acts”, <i>New Views on Luke and Acts</i>, 460)</blockquote>
After acknowledging his audience (Acts 17:22), Paul attempts to connect with them by seizing an opportunity that presents itself. He turns his attention to an inscription he had stumbled upon while surveying Athens (Acts 17:23). In a city that overflows with “gods”, the apostle capitalizes on a statue inscribed to an “unknown god” (Acts 17:23).
<blockquote>For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. (Acts 17:23 NASB)</blockquote>
Paul finds a concrete example that gives his listeners something with which they can latch onto while priming remainder of the discourse (Acts 17:23). In doing so, the missionary astutely generates interest and meets his audience where they are.
<p>I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) describes:
<blockquote>As proof of his statement [Acts 17:22] Paul relates how he had been observing the various objects of worship in the city; here again the word could be understood positively by the hearers, but at least to Jewish readers it would have a derogatory nuance (‘idols’; Wisdom of Solomon 14:20, 15:17). One such had particularly occupied Paul’s attention: a wayside altar with the inscription <i>to an unknown god</I> [Acts 17:23]. He eagerly seized on this inscription as a way of introducing his own proclamation of <i>the</I> unknown God. There was, to be sure, no real connection between ‘an unknown god’ and the true God; Paul hardly meant that his audience were unconscious worshippers of the true God. Rather, he is drawing their attention to the true God who was ultimately responsible for the phenomena which they attributed to an unknown god. (Marshall, <i>Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 285-86)</blockquote>
Paul’s observation will be developed into the speech’s theme (Acts 17:23-31). <a href=http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/pilchj/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John J. Pilch</a> (b. 1936) traces:
<blockquote>The speech that Luke crafted to insert in Paul’s mouth is, like all the speeches in Acts, a masterpiece [Acts 17:22-31]. His theme represented in the words, “Unknown,” “unknowingly,” and “ignorance” (Acts 17:23, 30) was a response to their suspicion that he was introducing “foreign” or “strange” notions (Acts 17:20). Paul’s focus is God, and how God ought to be properly understood...The aim of the speech was to guide the listeners toward monotheism. Jesus was not mentioned by name in this speech. (Pilch, <i>Visions and Healing in the Acts of the Apostles: How the Early Believers Experienced God</I>, 122-23)</blockquote>
Paul begins his speech with the familiar before venturing into new territory. When speaking publically, this is generally good practice. <a href=http://zondervan.com/longeneckerr STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard N. Longenecker</a> (b. 1930) analyzes:
<blockquote>Paul does not begin his address by referring to Jewish history or by quoting the Jewish Scriptures, as he did in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (cf. Acts 13:16-41). He knew it would be futile to refer to a history no one knew or argue from fulfillment of prophecy no one was interested in or quote from a book no one read or accepted as authoritative. Nor does he develop his argument from the God who gives rain and crops in their season and provides food for the stomach and joy for the heart as he did at Lystra (cf. Acts 14:15-17). Instead he took for his point of contact with the council an altar he had seen in the city with then inscription <i>Agnōstō Theō</I> (“To an Unknown God”) [Acts 17:23]. (Longenecker, <i>Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 271)</blockquote>
Paul takes the opening his circumstances provide, affirms his audience’s own religious language and uses it as a point of departure (Acts 17:22-23). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) educates:
<blockquote>Using the altar inscription as his point of departure, Paul says, “What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23b). This was a conventional technique in an argument: for example, Pseudo Heraclitus, <i>Fourth Epistle</I>, takes the text of an altar inscription that could be read in two ways as the point of departure for reflections on true worship. The selection of this inscription may have been facilitated by the fact that the deity of the Jews was sometimes called an/the unknown god: for example, Lucan [39-65], <i>Pharsalia</I> 2.592-93, says, “Judea [is] given over to the worship of an unknown god”; the <i>Scriptores Historiae Augustae</I>, “Claudius,” 2.4 speaks about Moses receiving a revelation from “the unknown god”; Josephus [37-100], <i>Against Apion</I> 2.167, says Moses represented God as one who in his essence is unknown. A Messianist Jew sees an Athenian inscription and takes it as his point of departure for a speech that will wind up attacking idolatry. Paul claims that, unlike Socrates [469-399 BCE], he is not teaching anything new or strange. What he proposes to do is not to tell them about a new deity but to acquaint them with the one already honored but not understood by them. Justin Martyr [100-165], 2 <i>Apology</I> 10.5-6, says Socrates in his teaching urged the Athenians to know the unknown god. Perhaps here is yet another Socratic echo. (Talbert, <i>Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary</I>, 161-62)</blockquote>
Like Paul, contemporary preachers ought to keep their eyes peeled, scavenging for items with which connect to an audience and better contextualize the gospel. <a href=http://seminary.fresno.edu/faculty/randy-white STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Randy White</a> (b. 1956) conceptualizes:
<blockquote>Like all good communicators he [Paul] was gathering intelligence while he was interacting. We learn something of his straightforward methodology for uncovering hidden forces in the city when, in speaking at the Areopagus, he referred to his first experience in Athens. He remarked mundanely, “For as I <i>went through</I> the city and <i>looked carefully</I>...” (Acts 17:23)...Paul got out in the city and looked, paying attention to things he saw. He knew that they had meaning and would give him clues that would help him connect with the city in a way that might bring a measure of transformation. (White, <i>Encounter God in the City: Onramps to Personal and Community Transformation</I>, 69)</blockquote>
Modern homileticians can also build upon the familiar. <a href=http://www.craddocksermons.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fred B. Craddock</a> (b. 1928) advises:
<blockquote>Most of those to whom we preach...need to recognize, and should recognize the message. If they don’t, it’s the fault of the preacher...It is part of the power of preaching that the people are familiar with what we’re saying. It is a mistake in preaching to disguise its familiarity. But that’s a part of the preacher’s ego—not to deal with the familiar. Somehow the familiar doesn’t seem powerful, somehow the familiar is just a no-no and there is a veering away from what is familiar and a sense that the power of preaching is in its novelty...The power in the preaching is for the people to say, “Amen.” And how can they say “Amen” if they’ve never heard it before? (Craddock, <i>Craddock on the Craft of Preaching</i>)</blockquote>
Avoiding the accusation of introducing yet another god into an already crowded pantheon (Acts 17:18-21), Paul draws attention to the statue of an unknown god (Acts 17:23).
<p><a href=http://davidgpeterson.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David G. Peterson</a> (b. 1944) comments:
<blockquote>The basis of Paul’s accusation was his careful observation of their <i>‘objects of worship’</I> (<i>sebasmata</I>; cf. Wisdom of Solomon 14:20, 15:17; Josephus [37-100], <i>Antiquities of the Jews</I> 18.344; II Thessalonians 2:4 [<I>sebasma</I>]). He had seen an abundance of statues and altars devoted to the worship of many gods, even coming across <i>‘an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD’</I> [Acts 17:23]. (Peterson, <i>The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 494)</blockquote>
<p>C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) examines:
<blockquote>διερχόμενος [“passing through”, Acts 17:23 NASB] here does not have the meaning that διέρχεσθαι sometimes...has in Acts. Paul was simply making his way through the city; as he went, he was looking carefully at religious objects. ἀναθεωρειν [“examining”, Acts 17:23 NASB] is a stronger word than θεωρειν (Acts 17:16); δϋστορειν...is stronger still. Idols struck the eye; Paul looked more closely at the σεβάσματα [“objects of worship”, Acts 17:23 NASB] . The word is derived from σέβας, <i>reverential awe</I> (<i>Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement</I> 1587): something viewed with such awe; broadly, any object relayed to cultus. At Wisdom of Solomon 14:20, 15:17; Josephus [37-100], <i>Antiquities of the Jews</I> 18.344 the word is used of objects of idolatrous worship, and so it is here, though one such object will be found to point to, or rather to suggest, the true God. εὑρον [“found”, Acts 17:23 NASB] does not necessarily imply that Paul was looking for what he <i>found</i>—he <i>came across</I>. Among various religious objects, σεβάσματα, a βωμός is almost certainly an altar, though the base of a statue (Homer [800-701 BCE], <i>Odyssey</I> 7.100) is, in the context, not impossible. The statue would be an image of the unknown god [Acts 17:23]. The altar, or base, was <i>inscribed</I>. (Barrett, <i>Acts 15-28 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 836-37)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ucs.ac.uk/About/Structure/UCSStaffProfiles/SchoolofArtsandHumanities/StaffNewTemplate/David-Gill.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David W. J. Gill</a> (b. 1946) relays:
<blockquote>As a focus for his speech to the Areopagus, Paul drew attention to an inscribed altar, ‘To an unknown god’, ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ (Acts 17:23). Both Pausanias [110-180] and Philostratus [170-247] noted such altars at Athens. However Richard Ernest Wycherley [1909-1986] has suggested an alternate view that this was not an isolated altar, but perhaps rather a hero shrine, possibly linked to Mycenean tombs in the Agora area at which offerings were made in later centuries. Certainly these tombs were perceived in later centuries as being sacred. Thus it is quite conceivable that a hero-cult, or <i>heroon</I>, might have centered on one of the Bronze Age tombs surrounding the agora, and that it is this cult of an unnamed <i>theos</I> to which Paul refers. It should be noted that the altar was one of many objects of worship (σεβάσματα) (Acts 17:23). Although this word may merely reflect the numerous altars and visual images related to cult at Athens, it also resonates with the worship of the imperial family, usually in Sebasteion. (Gill and <a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Conrad Gempf</a> [b. 1955], “Achaia”, <i>The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting</I>, 446-47)</blockquote>
The idol reads to an “unknown god” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “The God Nobody Knows” (MSG) (Acts 17:23).
<p>Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) defines:
<blockquote><b>ágnōstos</b> [“unknown”, Acts 17:23 NASB]...[is] found in the New Testament only in Acts 17:23, this word denotes “unknown” or “unrecognized.” The phrase “unknown God” does not occur in the Old Testament, though the heathen do not know (Psalm 79:6) and Israel does not know other gods (Hosea 13:4). The rabbis think the Gentiles have some knowledge of God but call God’s ways unknown. Neither the Greek nor Jewish world believes God is unknowable, though Plato [428-347 BCE] thinks he is inaccessible to the senses. An altar to the unknown God would simply imply uncertainty as to the god to which it should apply. Scepticism, of course, questions all knowledge, and Gnosticism thinks God can be known only supernaturally but Socrates [469-399 BCE], Aristotle [384-322 BCE], and the Stoics accept God’s knowability. (Gerhard Kittel [1888-1948] and Gerhard Friedrich [1908-1986], <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume I</I>, 115-21)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/johnson.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Luke Timothy Johnson</a> (b. 1943) connects:
<blockquote>There is a rhetorical play on the “unknown god” who is “unknowingly worshipped” [Acts 17:23]. The participle <i>agnoountes</I> also anticipates the “times of ignorance” in Acts 17:30. The verb <i>eusebeō</I> (“worship/reverence”) finds its only New Testament usage here and I Timothy 5:4; but sees <i>eusebēs</I> in Acts 10:2, 7 and <i>eusebia</I> in Acts 3:12. The verb is cognate with <i>sebasmata</I> in Acts 17:23. Paul’s “I am proclaiming” (<i>katangellō</I>), in turn, picks up the designation of him as a <i>katangeleus</I> [“proclaimer”, Acts 17:18 NASB]. (Johnson, <i>The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 315)</blockquote>
There is a grammatical anomaly in the inscription (Acts 17:23). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) divulges:
<blockquote>This God whom they venerated, said Paul, while they confessed their ignorance of his identity, was the God whom he now proposed to make known to them [Acts 17:23]. But he did not express himself quite so naturally, as if unreservedly identifying the “unknown god” of the inscription with the God whom he proclaimed. He used neuter, not masculine forms: “what therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (RSV). Since they acknowledge their ignorance of the divine nature, he would tell them the truth about it. (Bruce, <i>The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 336)</blockquote>
C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) determines:
<blockquote>Surprisingly, the masculine θεός is taken up as if it were neuter [“God”, Acts 17:23 NASB]...It is likely that the neuters are original; there was a double reason for changing them, the grammatical reason that the antecedent was θεός, the theological reason that Paul was understood to proclaim a personal, not an impersonal, deity (but cf. τὸ θειον in Acts 17:29). (Barrett, <i>Acts 15-28 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 838)</blockquote>
As a statue enshrined to an unknown god (singular) is otherwise unknown while dedications to unknown god<i>s</I> (plural) have been uncovered, some have suspected Acts of altering the altar’s inscription.
<p><a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/342/Hans+Conzelmann STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Hans Conzelmann</a> (1915-1989) contends:
<blockquote>Paul’s use of the altar inscription as a point of contact with the Athenians is a purely literary motif [Acts 17:23], since there was no inscription in this form. Luke has taken up a type of inscription well known in Athens, and has altered it to suit his purposes. (Conzelmann, <i>Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 140)</blockquote>
This argument is ancient. <a href=http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Alister E. McGrath</a> (b. 1959) reveals:
<blockquote>Numerous Christian writers of the early patristic period explained Paul’s meaning at this point [Acts 17:23] by appealing to the ‘anonymous altars’ which were scattered throughout the region at the time. Several (including Didymus [313-398] of Alexandria) suggested that Paul may have altered the inscription from plural (‘to unknown gods’). (McGrath, <i>The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific Theology</I>, 79)</blockquote>
Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) bolsters:
<blockquote>Jerome [347-420], <i>Commentary on Titus</I> 1.12, says, “In actuality, the altar inscription read ‘to the unknown, foreign gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa,’ not ‘to the unknown god’ [Acts 17:23], as Paul would have it.” To change a plural inscription to the singular for the sake of argument would not be unusual in antiquity. Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], <i>On Sobriety</I> 150, quotes Hesiod [eighth-seventh century BCE]’s <i>Works and Days</I> 289-92 in a monotheistic form by changing <i>theoi</I> (gods) to <i>theos</I> (God). (Talbert, <i>Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary</I>, 161)</blockquote>
The archaeological record has substantiated the existence of epitaphs to unknown gods.
<a href=http://open.biola.edu/authors/lee-martin-mcdonald STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lee Martin McDonald</a> (b. 1942) catalogs:
<blockquote>No such altar has been found at Athens, but there are several indications that there are altars erected in honor of unknown gods (plural). The absence of any such find, however, is no evidence that none existed. Apollonius of Tyana, responding to the piety of a young man, said “...it is much greater proof of wisdom and sobriety to speak well of all the gods, especially at Athens, where altars are set up in honour even of unknown gods” (Philostratus [170-247], <i>Apollonius of Tyana</I> 6.3, <a href=http://www.hup.harvard.edu/collection.php?cpk=1031 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Loeb Classical Library</a>; similarly, see also Diogenes Laertius [200-250], <i>Lives of Eminent Philosophers</I> 1:110). In the second century A.D., Pausanias [110-180], while describing one of the harbors of the Athenians at Munychia, wrote: “Here there is also a temple of Athena Sciras, and one of Zeus some distance away, and altars of the gods named Unknown, and of heroes, and of the children of Thesus and Phalerus...” (<I>Description of Greece</I> 1.1.2, Loeb Classical Library). In describing the altars of Olympia, Pausanius again writes: “An account of the great altar I gave a little way back; it is called the altar of Olympian Zeus. By it is an altar of the Unknown Gods, and after this an altar of Zeus Purifier, one of Victory, and another of Zeus—this time surnamed Underground” (<I>Description of Greece</I>, 5.14.8, Loeb Classical Library). Although Paul speaks of an “Unknown God” (singular) there is considerable support for altars erected in antiquity to Unknown Gods (plural). Again, this does not mean that what is reported in this passage is incorrect, but only that presently there is no evidence of such an altar. The independent evidence, however, is enough to suggest that such altars did exist. (<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/>Craig A. Evans</a> [b. 1952], <i>Acts-Philemon (The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary)</I>, 119-20)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/kavin-rowe STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">C. Kavin Rowe</a> (b. 1974) footnotes:
<blockquote>There are...several references to the plural “unknown gods” (ἀγνώστοις θεοις, etc.). So far, the only strong possibility for the singular form occurs in Diogenes Laertius [200-250]’s account of Epimenides [sixth century BCE]. Epimenides freed the Athenians from a plague by offering sacrifice to the “local god” (θύειν τω προσήκοντι θεω) upon the Areopagus wherever the sheep brought in for the occasion happened to lay down (<i>Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers</I>, 1.110). For a thorough review of the literary and inscriptional evidence, see especially, <a href=http://www.pietervanderhorst.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pieter Willem van der Horst</a> [b. 1946], “The Unknown God,” 19-42. (Rowe, <i>World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age</I>, 197)</blockquote>
<a href=http://davidgpeterson.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David G. Peterson</a> (b. 1944) defends:
<blockquote>Though no inscription specifically ‘to an unknown god’ [Acts 17:23] has been found in Athens... Any such altar could have perished, or its inscription could have become indecipherable through the ravages of time. Even in the singular, such a dedication implied polytheism — the need to acknowledge any god that might exist — but Paul used it to affirm monotheism. In their anxiety to honour any gods inadvertently ignored, the Athenians had displayed their ignorance of the one true God. (Peterson, <i>The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 494-95)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) reviews:
<blockquote>The debate over whether or not there was any such thing as an altar to an unknown god [Acts 17:23] in Athens in Paul’s day has largely proved sterile, due to a lack of hard evidence one way or the other. It has been suspected that Luke or Paul altered the plural into a singular for apologetic purposes. Some scholars, such as <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/342/Hans+Conzelmann STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Hans Conzelmann</a> [1915-1989], have been wiling to be dogmatic about the matter. It is certainly true that thus far <i>clear</I> evidence of such an altar has not been forthcoming, though there is considerable evidence for altars to certain unnamed gods (plural) in antiquity...All relevant evidence of any kind postdates the first century. For example, Pausanias [110-180]’s <i>Descriptions of Greece</I> written in the third quarter of the second century A.D., speaks of altars of gods called unknown (1.1.4)...The especial relevance of this is that Pausanias the inveterate traveler says he saw these altars in Athens. It is worth asking what exactly Pausanias means. Does he mean various altars each dedicated to <i>an</I> unknown god, or altars each of which is dedicated to more than one unknown god?...<a href=http://www.pietervanderhorst.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pieter Willem van der Horst</a> [b. 1946] has rightly pointed out, after surveying all the relevant material in detail, “[w]hen Greek and Latin authors speak of βωμοι θεων or <i>arae deorum</I> they usually mean a number of altars dedicated to a number of individual gods (e.g. Homer [800-701 BCE] <i>Iliad</I> XI,808; Juvenal [first-second century CE] <i>Saturae</I> III,145), not altars dedicated to a plurality of gods.” As van der Horst says, it is thus logically and grammatically possible that Pausanias might be referring to altars each one of which was dedicated to an unknown god. Here the parallel texts in Pausanias that speak about altars for unknown heroes (6.20.15-19, 6.24.4, 10.33.6) may be relevant since there are certainly altar inscriptions which read “altar for a hero” of unknown name (<i>Inscriptiones Graecae</I> 2.2.1546, 1547). This may suggest that what Paul (or Luke) actually saw was an inscription which simply read “altar to a god,” since the god’s name or identity was unknown, and he added the explicatory term “unknown” [Acts 17:23]. One factor which may be thought to count against this reasoning is another text in Pausanias’s work (5.14.8) which clearly refers to “<i>an</I> altar of unknown gods” (αγνωστων θεων βωμος), and the wording here suggests that this is exactly what the inscription on the altar read, whereas in the previously quoted text it could be thought to be Pausanias’s way of describing the altar in view of the term “called.” The evidence from Diogenes Laertius [200-250] (<i>Lives of Eminent Philosophers</I> 1.110) and from Philostratus [170-247]’s <i>Life of Apollonius of Tyana</I> (4.3), both from the early third century, confirms that in Athens there were altars for unknown gods with both altars and gods being in the plural...The one relevant piece of archaeological data comes from an altar from the second century A.D. found in the precincts of the temple of Demeter in Pergamum in Asia Minor. Unfortunately, the inscription is broken off at the crucial point, but it appears probable in view of the number of letters per line and the fragment of a word we do have that it should be restored to read “to gods unknown (ΘΕΟΙΣ ΑΓ[ΝΩΣΤΟΙΣ]) Capito the torch-bearer [dedicated this altar].” The discussion by van der Horst shows that this reconstruction is very possible and was favored by three of the great experts in this century on Greco-Roman religion, A.D. Nock [1902-1963], Martin P. Nilsson [1874-1967], and Otto Weinreich [1886-1972]. Jerome [347-420] (<i>Commentary on Titus</I> 1.12; <i>Epistle 70, Ad Magnum</I>) suggests that Paul rephrased an inscription which originally read “To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa, to the unknown and foreign gods.”...What the above evidence does seem to establish is that there were altars to unknown gods (plural) in antiquity, and that they were especially known to have existed in Athens. What this evidence does not rule out is that there were also altars that read “to a god” or even “to an unknown god” [Acts 17:23] which archaeologists simply have not discovered yet. (Witherington, <i>The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary</I>, 521-22)</blockquote>
Many have addressed why such an idol would have been erected. In his 1913 book <i>Agnos Theos</I>, Eduard Norden (1868-1941) proposed, that in addition to the twelve primary deities and countless lesser gods, ancient Greeks worshiped a deity they called “Agnostos Theos” (“Unknown God”) which Norden dubbed “Un-Greek”.
<p>F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) posits:
<blockquote>Paul may have seen an altar dedicated exactly as he says [Acts 17:23]. When a derelict altar was repaired and the original dedication could not be ascertained, the inscription “To the (an) unknown god” would have been quite appropriate. An altar on the Palatine Hill in Rome was rebuilt around 100 B.C. and dedicated “whether to a god or to a goddess”; the vagueness of the wording reflects ignorance of the divinity in whose honor it had first been erected. (Bruce, <i>The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 335-36)</blockquote>
A more common explanation is that the Athenians created a catchall deity as a precaution in the event a god had been inadvertently overlooked (Acts 17:23). One would not wish to unintentionally offend an as yet anonymous deity lest he punish his audience for their sin of omission. The unknown god then functions much like a god of fill-in-the-blank. It is like keeping a present wrapped in the event an unexpected guest appears on Christmas morning. The statue also functions like the <a href=http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore-the-Cemetery/Tomb-of-the-Unknown-Soldier STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tomb of the Unknown Soldier</a>, whose own inscription reads, “Here rests in honored glory an <a href=http://www.usa.gov/>American</a> soldier known but to God”. In short, the Athenians are hedging their bets.
<p><a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/kavin-rowe STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">C. Kavin Rowe</a> (b. 1974) researches:
<blockquote>Altars to the unknown gods are usually interpreted as evidence of pagan anxiety not to neglect—and thereby anger—any god whatsoever. See <a href=http://www.pietervanderhorst.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pieter Willem van der Horst</a> [b. 1946], “The Unknown God” 27, for example, and <a href=http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/robinlanefox.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robin Lane Fox</a> [b. 1946], <i>Pagans and Christians</I>, 38 passim, for the general context of “the gods’ own anger at their neglect.” From a different angle, <a href=http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/classics/staff/mitchell/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen Mitchell</a> [b. 1948], “Cult of Theos Hypsistos,” 122, has noted that if—following <a href=http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff/search?uun=tbarnes&search=3&cw_xml=bio.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Timothy D. Barnes</a> [b. 1942]—Paul stood trial on the Areopagus, “he was standing directly in front of the cult place of Theos Hypsistos, the God ‘not admitting of a name, known by many names.’” Mitchell’s quotation refers...to the famous oracle inscription from Oenoanda (northern Lycia). (Rowe, <i>World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age</I>, 197)</blockquote>
Martin Dibelius (1883-1947) justifies:
<blockquote>The consecration to unknown gods may have been occasioned by the fear that, through ignorance, a god might be denied the homage which was due him; this fear, when found in places such as Athens, Olympia, and Pergamum—through which foreign traffic passed—seems not entirely unjustified and may even have been kept alive by stories of gods which had become maleficent. (Dibelius, <i>The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology</I>, 103)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ajithfernando.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ajith Fernando</a> (b. 1948) concurs:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Conrad Gempf</a> [b. 1955] points to a writing by Diogenes Laertius [200-250] that presents the practice of anonymous worship as a “safety precaution...The thinking was that if the gods were not properly venerated they would strike the city. Hence, lest they inadvertently invoke the wrath of some god in their ignorance of him or her, the city set up these altars to unknown gods (Diogenes 1.110-113).” Paul, then, is highlighting an acknowledged need of the Athenians, and he presents the God whom he proclaims as the answer to that need (Acts 17:23b). (Fernando, <i>Acts (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 475)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=27824 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Christoph W. Stenschke</a> (b. 1966) recreates:
<blockquote>Though the origin or reasoning behind this worship is not given, it can be reconstructed [Acts 17:23]. Rather than offend a deity forgotten or as yet unknown to them and risk retribution for such disregard, worship of the unknown god was established in precaution. There was ‘fear of anxiety that by naming one god instead of another their acts of worship would not yield the results desired. To be on the safe side, a Greek could use the formula “unknown god”’. This altar and its inscription indicated that even a god whose existence were dubious was worshipped, showing the uncertainty and confusion in which these Gentiles were. Worship of yet another god, though unknown, is not surprising in their polytheistic paradigm. (Stenschke, <i>Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith</I>, 212)</blockquote>
William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945-2014) relays:
<blockquote>Once when Athens was plagued by pestilence in the sixth century B.C. and the city rulers had exhausted all their strategies to abate it, they sent to Crete, asking the prophet Epimenides [sixth century BCE] to come and help. His remedy was to drive a herd of black and white sheep away from the Areopagus and, wherever they lay down, to sacrifice them to the god of that place. The plague was stayed, and Diogenes Laertes [200-250] says that memorial altars with no god’s name inscribed on them may consequently be found throughout Africa. Richard Ernest Wycherley [1909-1986] proposes, with some archaeological justification, that such altars may also have been raised to appease the dead wherever ancient burial sites were disturbed by the building projects of later generations (1968:621). (Larkin, <i>Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series)</I>, 255-56)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.mwrc.ac.uk/dean-flemming/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dean Flemming</a> (b. 1953) penetrates:
<blockquote>It illustrates a common fear of unknown powers among the Greeks. Paul’s mention of the altar to the unknown God therefore identifies an underlying religious need of his audience [Acts 17:23]. At the same time, it picks up on the theme of knowledge, which is highly valued by the Greeks. The Athenians’ worship of the <i>unknown</I> serves as a springboard for Paul to launch into his evangelistic message about the one true God who is <i>known</I> because this God has revealed himself. Additionally, the reference to the altar inscription allows Paul to build credibility with his audience by removing the suspicion that he is trying to introduce foreign deities to Athens (cf. Acts 17:18): the God he proclaims is not <i>entirely</I> unknown to them. (Flemming, <i>Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission</I>, 76)</blockquote>
These are just several of the reasons that have been given for the existence of a statue devoted to an “unknown god” (Acts 17:23). <a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) reflects:
<blockquote>There are at least several possible scenarios which could have led to the erection of an altar to an unknown god [Acts 17:23]. First, as F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] points out, altars were frequently reused and rededicated, especially after a natural disaster or a war. If an altar was found partially destroyed, and the name of the god it was originally dedicated to was missing, it is very possible that such an altar would be rededicated either in the form “to a god” or even “to an unknown or unnamed god.”...Secondly, there is now some evidence discussed by <a href=http://www.pietervanderhorst.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pieter Willem van der Horst</a> [b. 1946] that God-fearers living in places like Athens or elsewhere outside of Palestine could have erected an altar to the god of the Jews with the inscription “to the unknown (or unnamed?) God” of the Jews. It must be remembered that to “many Greeks the god of the Jewish religion was definitely an unknown god <i>par excellence</I> because he could not be called by name and he had no image. If a God-fearing Gentile dedicated such an altar, then of course the inscription would have referred to <i>a god</I>, namely, the only one Jews and their Gentile adherents recognized. There is some evidence, admittedly late, that quotes Livy [59 BCE-17 CE]’s now-lost 102d book of his <i>Roman History</I> as saying about the god worshiped in Judea, “the god worshipped there is unknown.”...The word “unknown” could of course be a term used by a foreigner of a god that simply had a name unknown to him or her, or it could be an expression of doubt about the true name of a god, or it could be a word used to avoid misnaming a god since it was believed that to misname could bring the wrath of a god. In any of these circumstances, it is conceivable that there could have been a dedication to a particular unknown or unnamed god. Thus, van der Horst’s conclusion is fully warranted: “It is not improbable that there were altars with dedications in the singular, though it is likely that they were an exception to the rule, most dedications being in the plural.” (Witherington, <i>The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary</I>, 522-523)</blockquote>
Whatever impetus generated the object, its origins are immaterial to Paul.
<p>Some have heard echoes of Scripture in the allusion to the unknown god (Acts 17:23). <a href=http://divinity.uchicago.edu/hans-josef-klauck STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Hans-Josef Klauck</a> (b. 1946) ascertains:
<blockquote>There is...a concealed biblical dimension present when Luke writes of the unknown god [Acts 17:23], since he is at the time the hidden God of whom Old Testament prophecy speaks: ‘Truly, you are a hidden God, O God of Israel, the saviour!’ (Isaiah 45:15). This inspires the prophet to hope that the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Sabaeans will come to Israel and confess: ‘God is with you only, and there is no other’ (Isaiah 45:14). The hidden God emerges from his hiddenness when he acts; he is made known in preaching and wants to be acknowledged by all, for otherwise judgement threatens. In terms of the narrative framework, we also discover that there is a gap in the Gentiles’ own structure of faith, a space left empty for ‘foreign divinities’ whom Paul is allegedly preaching (cf. Acts 17:18). But it is the Bible that supplies the matter to fill this. (Klauck, <i>Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles</I>, 83)</blockquote>
<A HREF=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/academics/view-faculty-member.cfm?faculty_id=19715&grp_id=8946 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eckhard J. Schnabel</a> (b. 1955) considers:
<blockquote>The reference to the “unknown god” (Acts 17:23), understood in the context of Isaiah 45:15, 18-25, implies a censure of religious pagan convictions. The prophet Isaiah, after repeating Israel’s monotheistic confession, “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior” (Isaiah 45:15), narrates a speech of Yahweh in which he seeks to convert the people to worshiping the one true God. If Israel’s God appears to be hidden and thus an unknown God, Yahweh’s words prove that he is indeed not hiding at all... (Isaiah 45:18-19...Isaiah 45:20-21)...This truth leads to an invitation...Turn to me and be saved...all the ends of the earth!...For I am God, and there is no other. [Isaiah 45:22]. (Schnabel, <i>Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods</I>, 174-75)</blockquote>
For Paul, the statue is merely a means to an end through which he can introduce the polytheistic Athenians to monotheism (Acts 17:23). The comparison serves only as a bridge; the idol represents an inexact correlation, if there is one at all.
<p><a href=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/clinton_arnold/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clinton E. Arnold</a> (b. 1958) corrects:
<blockquote>When Paul says, “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23), he does not imply by this statement that they were already unconsciously worshiping the one true God. This merely serves as a means to raise for them the most basic question of life: Who is God? (Arnold, <i>John, Acts (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 174)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currPage=4&keyword=crceg&SourceOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&AudioOnly=false&SortBy=oldest/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Derek Carlsen</a> (b. 1961) assures:
<blockquote>Paul does not say, the little bit the Athenians claimed to know about this unknown god was correct and now all he was going to do was increase their knowledge about him. Paul chose this particular altar because it was an excellent example of the Athenians’ bankrupt philosophy [Acts 17:23]. The Athenians, in having this altar, were acknowledging that even after their multitudes of idols and different deities, they were religiously unsatisfied and unsure.
(Carlsen, <i>Faith & Courage: Commentary on Acts</I>, 400)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.pietervanderhorst.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pieter Willem van der Horst</a> (b. 1946) resolves:
<blockquote>The quotation of the inscription functions as a way of introducing his [Paul’s] own proclamation of the unknown god [Acts 17:23]. ‘There was, to be sure, no real connection between “an unknown god” and the true God. Rather, he is drawing their attention to the true God who was ultimately responsible for the phenomena which they attributed to an unknown god’. The altar inscription enables Paul to emphasise the ignorance of his audience concerning the true identity of God. It is not only by ἀγνοουντες [“ignorance”, NASB] in Acts 17:23 that he stresses this point, but also and again in Acts 17:30 where he says that God has overlooked the times of their ignorance...Until the coming of the revelation of God’s true nature in Christianity men lived in ignorance of him. (Van der Horst, “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cult of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the Hellenistic and Romans Periods’, <I>Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt</I> <i>II</i>,18.2 (1989), 1454)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John R.W. Stott</a> (1921-2011) limits:
<blockquote>How...shall we interpret his statement that ‘what’ they were worshipping ‘as something unknown’ he was able to proclaim to them [Acts 17:23]? Was he thereby acknowledging the authenticity of their pagan worship, and should we regard with equal charity the cultus of non-Christian religions? For example, is <a hrf=http://www.raimon-panikkar.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Raimon Panikkar</a> [1918-2010] justified, in <i>The Unknown Christ of Hinduism</I>, in writing: ‘In the footsteps of St. Paul, we believe that we may speak not only of the unknown God of the Greeks but also of the hidden Christ in Hinduism’? Is he further justified in concluding that ‘the good and bona fide Hindu is saved by Christ and not by Hinduism, but it is through the sacraments of Hinduism, through the message of morality and the good life, through the mysterion that comes down to him through Hinduism, that Christ saves the Hindu normally’?...No, this popular reconstruction cannot be maintained...N.B. Stonehouse [1902-1968] is right that what Paul picked out for comment was the Athenians’ open acknowledgment of their ignorance [Acts 17:23, 30], and that the ignorance rather than the worship is underscored...Moreover, Paul made the bold claim to enlighten their ignorance (a Jew presuming to teach ignorant Athenians!), using <i>egō</I> of apostolic authority, and insisting thereby that special revelation must control and correct whatever general revelation seems to disclose. (Stott, <i>The Message of Acts (Bible Speaks Today)</I>, 284-85)</blockquote>
Paul’s negative appraisal of the Athenians’ idolatry is evident early in his speech (Acts 17:23). <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66210 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mikeal C. Parsons</a> (b. 1957) observes:
<blockquote>Within the compliment is an implicit criticism: <b>that which you worship in ignorance, this is what I am proclaiming to you</b> (Acts 17:23b). The Athenians had been worshiping an object, not a personal God, a “what,” not a “whom.” (Parsons, <i>Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</I>, 246)</blockquote>
This sentiment reverberates throughout Paul’s discourse (Acts 17:23-31). <a href=http://www.shef.ac.uk/biblicalstudies/people/alexander STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Loveday Alexander</a> detects:
<blockquote>This conciliatory opening might be dismissed as a preacher’s play on words, but the whole tone of the sermon, though uncompromising in its condemnation of the practice of ‘idolatry’ (Acts 17:29), tends towards the recognition that the Zeus of the Greek poets and philosophers is the same as the creator whom Paul proclaims (Acts 17:24-28). The negative side of this debate surfaces in Ephesus, where the town clerk cheerfully defends Paul and his friends against the charge of being ‘sacrilegious and blasphemers of our goddess’ (Acts 19:37), despite Paul’s reputation as a scourge of idolatry (Acts 19:26). (Alexander, <i>Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context</I>, 197)</blockquote>
Paul routinely unmasks idolatry. <a href=http://www.allnations.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=5 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">V.J. Samkutty</a> professes:
<blockquote>Luke exposes false gods and goddesses as he has Paul refer to an inscription to the unknown god at Athens (Acts 17:23), Demetrius and the town clerk affirm the deity of Ephesian Artemis (Acts 19:26-27, 37), the Lycaonians address Barnabas as Zeus and Paul as Hermes (Acts 14:12), and in Malta, the people claimed that the just vengeance of the gods (ἡ δίκη) brought punishment upon Paul, and later on they regard Paul himself as a god (Acts 28:4, 6). (Samkutty, <i>The Samaritan Mission in Acts</I>, 177-78)</blockquote>
Instead of false deities, the true God permeates Paul’s thought (Acts 17:23-31). John T. Squires (b. 1964) deconstructs:
<blockquote>The focus on the providence of God is...conveyed through the syntax of the speech [Acts 17:22-31]. The analysis of Paul Schubert [1900-1969] demonstrates the centrality of God’s actions in speech. The first period (Acts 17:24-25) establishes God as the primary subject of the speech, both through the relationship between God and humanity and through God’s activities in human history. God’s actions are the focus of the first half of the second period (Acts 17:26-27), God’s relationship to humanity of the second half of this period. In the third and fourth periods (Acts 17:28-29), although humanity (‘we’) becomes the subject, ‘the exception is only syntactical, not material, for Acts 17:28-29 deal as much (from the point of view of Luke) with the proper relationship between God and men as do the others’. The fifth period (Acts 17:30-31) returns syntactically to the primary subject, ὁ θεός [“God”, Acts 17:30 NASB], and thematically to the actions of God in history. The scope of God’s activity thus encompasses the whole of history, from creation to judgement, from breath to resurrection, with individual and cosmic dimensions, focussed on the central figured of the appointed man, Jesus. (Squires, <i>The Plan of God in Luke-Acts</I>, 73-74)</blockquote>
C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) defends Paul’s use of the unknown god (Acts 17:23):
<blockquote>It [Acts 17:23] must be understood as a preacher’s ad hoc way of introducing his theme, and it would be unfair to hold him bound to all the theological implications of his illustration. The Athenians (those of them who were religiously rather than sceptically disposed) reverenced a considerable number of gods. The preacher could have made a note of many other σεβάσματα [ “objects of worship”, Acts 17:30 NASB] bearing the names of particular gods; he picked out this god, whose name was not given because it was not known, as the one whom, to the exclusion of all the others, he intended to proclaim. (Barrett, <i>Acts 15-28 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 838-39)</blockquote>
N.T. Wright (b. 1948) adds:
<blockquote>Paul was not simply constructing a would-be theology out of bits and pieces of the local culture, in order, as the phrase goes, to discover what God might be doing in this place and do it with him. According to Paul, the main thing that God was doing in Athens was shaking his head in sorrow and warning of imminent judgment. (Wright, <i>Acts for Everyone, Part 2</I>, 88)</blockquote>
Though utilizing another’s beliefs as a point of contact is still good practice, <a href=http://www.smccutchan.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen P. McCutchan</a> (b. 1941) cautions:
<blockquote>The major Christian seasons were transformations of pagan rituals into Christian expressions. The festival of Saturnalia was transformed into a celebration of Christ’s birth. Easter was an adaptation of a spring goddess festival. The cross was intended to be a sign of shame but was transformed into a sign of hope. Like Paul, these Christians knew that the false gods were “not gods” and therefore felt free to transform them into vehicles of faith. The danger for us, however, is that the reverse process is also possible. (McCutchan, <i>Water from the Well: Lectionary Devotional for Cycle A</I>, 154)</blockquote>
Paul’s missionary technique in interacting with the Athenians is exemplary and has been treated as a model (Acts 17:23-31). In fact, his reference to the unknown god (Acts 17:23) served as the primary archetype for missionary comparative religion in nineteenth-century southern Africa.
<p><a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) briefs:
<blockquote>Many recognized Paul’s speech to the Areopagus as a model of how to relate to others’ beliefs without compromising one’s own Christian convictions [Acts 17:22-31]. Stoic thinkers could agree with most of what Paul said in the speech, although it was also biblical. Only toward the end of his speech did Paul go beyond dialogue and seek conversion, bringing up necessary and important points of difference. (Keener, <I>Acts (Immersion Bible Studies)</i>)</blockquote>
Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) applauds:
<blockquote>Starting from a cultural value acknowledged by the audience enables Paul to engage them in the discourse [Acts 17:22-23]. Denying that this value has been realized within the present culture and calling for repentance turns this into a critical engagement [Acts 17:30]...The Areopagus speech may provide a helpful model of the delicate task of speaking outside the religious community through critical engagement with the larger world. A mission that does not engage the presuppositions and concerns of those being approached leaves these presuppositions and concerns untouched, with the result that the message, even if accepted, does not transform its hearers. The fundamental structures of the old life remain standing, and the gospel loses its culture-transforming power. Dialogue with outsiders may be risky, but the refusal of dialogue on cultural concerns results either in the isolation of the religious community or the compartmentalization of religion so that it does not affect society at large. (Tannehill, <i>The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts, A Literary Interpretation, Volume Two: The Acts of the Apostles</I>, 215)</blockquote>
<a href=http://discoverjoy.com/dr-stan-may/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stan May</a> (b. 1956) applies:
<blockquote>Paul builds bridges of understanding by acknowledging their religiosity (Acts 17:22), quoting lines from Athenian poetry to communicate truth (Acts 17:28), using their logic to present his arguments, and employing one of their altars to point them to Christ [Acts 17:23]. Don Richardson [b. 1935] says that Paul understood the story of the altar to the Unknown God and used this tool to proclaim what they worshiped as unknown [Acts 17:23]...When missionaries do not develop an understanding of the culture and worldview of their target people group, they naturally tend to view their own culture as superior to the cultures of others. This tendency...is identified as <i>ethnocentrism</I>. The solution to ethnocentrism is to try to understand another culture in terms of its own values and assumptions and its members as fellow humans. (<a href=http://www.ciu.edu/discover-ciu/who-we-are/faculty-staff/mike-barnett STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mike Barnett</a> [b. 1952], “Cultures and Worldviews”, <i>Discovering the Mission of God: Best Missional Practices for the 21st Century</I>, 386)</blockquote>
Paul meets the pagan Athenians where they are by taking their own statues and philosophers and using them to present Judeo-Christian monotheism (Acts 17:23-31). The apostle begins with a healthy respect for his audience’s position. Though not always followed, this standard should still be modeled today.
<p><font color="#66CD00">What sermons/speeches have begun with the localized observation of the speaker? What do the landmarks in your area reveal about the ideology of the region? What are the rhetorical benefits of Paul latching onto the statue of “the unknown God” (Acts 17:23)? What precautions do you take to insure that you demonstrate respect towards others’ beliefs? What analogies have you used to communicate your convictions? Where should interfaith dialogue begin? Are you familiar with the commonalities between your beliefs and competing ideologies? Do you speak differently to Christians (the initiated) than you do with non-Christians (the uninitiated); should you? What, if any, is the connection between the unknown god (Acts 17:23) and the one true God? </font>
<p>In recalling the Athenians’ concession to an unknown deity (Acts 17:23), Paul appeals to a basic human instinct to pursue meaning. <a href=http://www.harryjaponte.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Harry J. Aponte</a> (b. 1935) evaluates:
<blockquote>Paul discovered an altar in Athens that the Greeks had dedicated to the “Unknown God’ (Acts 17:23). He believed he knew who that God was, but he spoke to the Greeks’ pursuit as to a universal human impulse. Consciously or unconsciously everyone is searching for an overarching meaning and purpose to pain and pleasure, life and death. Everyone has a spirituality. (<a href=http://ccfhchicago.org/faculty/faculty-descrip/froma-walsh/>Froma Walsh</a> [b. 1942], “The Stresses of Poverty and the Comfort of Spirituality”, <i>Spiritual Resources in Family Therapy: Second Edition</I>, 127)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.apu.edu/theology/faculty/llosie/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lynn Allan Losie</a> (b. 1946) enlightens:
<blockquote>Paul’s point of departure for his speech, using the altar “To a Unknown [<i>agnôstô</I>] God” to which he claims the Athenians show reverence “without knowing [<i>agnoountes</I>] (Acts 17:23)...picks up a theme in Stoic philosophy. On the occasion of the dedication of a famous statue to Zeus created by Pheidias at the Olympic Games in 97 C.E., the Stoic Dio Chrystostom [40-120] gave an oration in which he used the image of the god as a springboard for a discourse on “the nature of the gods in general, and especially that of the ruler of the universe.” The knowledge of this supreme god, according to Dio Chryststom, is “inevitable and innate in every creature endowed with reason, arising in the course of nature without the aid of human teacher and free from the deceit of any expounding priest.” Thus he asks, “How, then could they have remained ignorant [<i>agnôtes</I>] and conceived no inkling of him who had sowed and planted and was now preserving and nourishing them, when on every side they were filled with the divine nature through both sight and hearing, and in fact through every sense?” The Stoic philosopher Epictetus (c. 55-135 C.E.) echoes the same sentiment: “You are bearing God about with you, you poor wretch, and know it not!” In the introduction to his speech on the Areopagus, Paul thus builds a bridge to his audience, even in what may seem to be critical remarks. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/G/Robert-Gallagher STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Gallagher</a> [b. 1949] and <a href=http://www.apu.edu/clas/faculty/phertig/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul Hertig</a> [b. 1955], “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus: A Model of Cross-cultural Evangelism (Acts 17:16-34)”, <i>Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context</I>, 229)</blockquote>
Their reverence for the “unknown god” indicates that the Athenians sense that there is something more (Acts 17:23). They simply do not know what it is. Paul attempts to fill in the gap, taking the Athenians from “general revelation” (Romans 1:16-25) to “specific revelation”.
<p> <a href=http://www.apu.edu/theology/faculty/llosie/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lynn Allan Losie</a> (b. 1946) notes:
<blockquote>The speech on the Areopagus [Acts 17:22-31] acknowledges the existence of general revelation and uses it as the basis for an evangelistic appeal. Ironically, the “unknown god” [Acts 17:23] is, in fact, the God who is known. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/G/Robert-Gallagher STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Gallagher</a> [b. 1949] and <a href=http://www.apu.edu/clas/faculty/phertig/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul Hertig</a> [b. 1955], “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus: A Model of Cross-cultural Evangelism (Acts 17:16-34)”, <i>Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context</I>, 232)</blockquote>
<a href=http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Alister E. McGrath</a> (b. 1959) agrees:
<blockquote>The fundamental point being made is that a deity of whom the Greeks had some implicit knowledge or intuitive awareness is being made known to them by name and in full [Acts 17:22-31]. The god who is known indirectly through his creation can be known fully in redemption...On the basis of a detailed survey of the biblical material, it seems that a knowledge of God, however limited, is indeed presupposed. Yet there is no sign of any endorsement of the view that God can be known, fully and authentically, by any mode other than revelation. (McGrath, <i>The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific Theology</I>, 79)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1938&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cleophas J. LaRue</a> (b. 1953) proclaims:
<blockquote>Without revelation we wouldn’t be Christians at all; we would be Athenians, like those whose altar Paul discovered outside Athens, inscribed, “To an unknown god” (Acts 17:23). Without revelation he would be to us an unknown god. But we believe that God has revealed himself, not only in the ordered loveliness of the created universe, but supremely in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the totality of the biblical witness to Christ. Without that revelation expressed in speaking – human speech is the model that God has chosen to indicate what is meant by revelation – without it we would know nothing of him. (<a href=http://www.mcmasterdivinity.ca/faculty/core/michael-p-knowles STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael P. Knowles</a> [b. 1956], <i>The Folly of Preaching: Models and Methods</I>, 115)</blockquote>
Some have argued that Jesus has been present in Athens (general revelation) and that Paul is merely unveiling him (specific revelation). Dandapati Samuel Satyaranjan (b. 1939) trumpets:
<blockquote>God is present in the presence of Jesus Christ in the midst of humanity in its exercise of faith in the world. He is like the ‘Unknown God’ unidentified in Acts 17:23. D.T. Niles [1908-1970] stresses the need to “uncover a presence which has been there even though unidentified; indeed, a presence that was forgotten and lost, if not denied.” Religious history speaks of the “known gods.” What is truly present is God who is “unknown”, who needs to be discovered. Therefore, Niles says, “It is the present tense, the way in which God is contemporarily present, which needs to be discerned and named. That this present tense has always been present is what makes the name of Jesus appropriate for it.” (Satyaranjan, <i>The Preaching of Daniel Thambirajah (D.T.) Niles [1908-1970]: Homiletical Criticism</I>, 81)</blockquote>
<a href=http://karlrahnersociety.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Karl Rahner</a> (1904-1984), a leading <a href=http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Roman Catholic</a> “inclusivist”, writes:
<blockquote>Human life does of itself present a kind of anonymous Christianity, which explicit Christianity can then interpret, giving a person the courage to accept and not run away from what one experiences and undergoes in one’s own life...This would be putting into practice what St. Paul said of his preaching: ‘What therefore you worship (really worship!) without knowing it! (as consciously and explicitly interpreted), that I preach to you.’ (Acts 17:23) (Rahner, <i>Mission and Grace Vol. I: Essays in Pastoral Theology</I>, 160)</blockquote>
When presenting Jesus to someone who has not yet heard of him, one might find that Christ is already there. <a href=https://www.robbell.com STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rob Bell</a> (b. 1970) updates:
<blockquote>Have you ever heard missionaries say they were going to “take Jesus” to a certain place?...The issue isn’t so much taking Jesus to people who don’t have him, but going to a place and pointing out to the people there the creative, life-giving God who is already present in their midst...If you do see yourself carrying God to places, it can be exhausting...God is really heavy...Some people actually believe that God is absent from a place until they get there. The problem with this idea is that if God is not there before you get there, then there is no “there” in the first place. (Bell, <i>Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith</I>, 088)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.jtc.edu.au/profile/gerry-ocollins STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gerald O’Collins</a> (b. 1931) expands:
<blockquote>As regards the universal presence of Christ, we can extend the language of Luke about ‘the unknown God’ (Acts 17:23) to speak of the unknown Christ who has been and is active everywhere, for everyone, and in the history of all cultures and regions—albeit often hiddenly. He may be unknown, but never absent. He has mediated revelation and salvation through particular historical events and persons, and continues to mediate to all the revelatory and saving self-communication of God...Many object to such a vision of Christ being truly present, but less visibly, in the lives of those who adhere to other religions. (O’Collins, <i>Rethinking Fundamental Theology</I>, clxiii)</blockquote>
<a href=http://tonycampolo.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tony Campolo</a> (b.1935) illustrates:
<blockquote> <a href=http://billygraham.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Billy Graham</a> (b. 1918), at the 1987 <a href=https://urbana.org STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Urbana</a> missions conference, told about going to a monastery in <a href=http://english.gov.cn/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">China</a> to talk to some Buddhists. When he got there, he saw one particular monk in deep meditation, and felt led by the Spirit to go and talk to the man about Jesus. With his translator, Dr. Graham opened the Scripture and explained the way of salvation, giving the details about what Jesus had done on the cross and how giving one’s life over to Christ would give a person eternal life...Dr. Graham could sense that this Buddhist monk was taking all of this in, and was so moved by it that there were tears in his eyes. He said to the monk, “Are you willing to invite Jesus into your life right here and right now as we pray together?”... The monk looked back at him in dismay and said, “Accept him into my life? I would accept him, but you must understand that he is already in me. He has been in me for a long time. I didn’t know all the things about him that you have just told me, but this Jesus that you have been telling me about is within me, and as you spoke, his Spirit within me was confirming everything that you said. I believe in what you said because the Spirit has convinced me that these things are true. I would accept him, except that he is already within me.”...That story left open this question: was Christ alive in that monk before Billy Graham ever got there? (<a href=http://www.redletterchristians.org/shane/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Shane Claiborne</a> [b. 1975] and Campolo, <i>Red Letter Revolution: What If Jesus Really Meant What He Said?</I>, 53-54)</blockquote>
Paul’s use of the statue of the unknown God allows for the possibility that God is active in the lives of people who do not yet even acknowledge God (Acts 17:23). Though no one has a complete picture of God and there are still aspects of the Christian God which remain unknown, thankfully, the one true God is knowable because God makes Godself known. Perpetually.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why did the Athenians not know the one true God? Is there a divine spark in all of us that simply need be ignited? When did God become known to you? Do you think that you knew God before you formally met? Is God at work in the lives of those who do not profess Christianity; in other religions in and of themselves? To whom do you proclaim God to whom God is unknown?</font>
<p>“The mission and evangelism of the Church would be much more effective if we were better able to build upon that instinct for God...which is so widely dispersed in our society.” - <a href=http://www.chester.anglican.org/who_list.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Peter Forste</a> (b. 1950), Bishop of Chester, 2003Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-45127360904214529542014-09-08T15:00:00.000-07:002014-09-08T18:02:44.763-07:00Jezebel: Gone to the Dogs (II Kings 9:35-37)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0lLD1p3e254/VAzCZsFtmkI/AAAAAAAAI7U/ktjo_5QW2mg/s1600/JezebelDeathBarbaraGriffiths.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="134.667" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0lLD1p3e254/VAzCZsFtmkI/AAAAAAAAI7U/ktjo_5QW2mg/s320/JezebelDeathBarbaraGriffiths.jpg" /></a></div><b>Who got thrown out of the window and eaten by the dogs? Jezebel (II Kings 9:30-37)</b>
<p>Jezebel is one of the quintessential biblical villains. From the time she debuts in the biblical text (I Kings 16:31) until her excessively gruesome death (II Kings 9:30–37), the wicked queen is depicted operating antithetically to the aims of Yahweh. The arch-nemesis of the prophet Elijah actively promotes the worship of the false god Baal in Israel and is deemed personally responsible for the death of many of God’s prophets (I Kings 18:4, 13; II Kings 9:7).
<p>When Jezebel incriminates innocent Naboth to secure his coveted vineyard (I Kings 21:1-16), her fate is sealed. Elijah pronounces a death sentence against the queen (I Kings 21:17-29). In spite of her ghastly ruination (II Kings 9:30-37), Jezebel has resonated throughout history and continues to be typecast as the villain, her name having become synonymous with debauchery.
<p><a href=https://www.facebook.com/josey.snyder STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Josey Bridges Snyder</a> (b. 1983) observes:
<blockquote>Jezebel is one of the few biblical characters treated <i>almost</i> uniformly negatively both in the biblical text and in the subsequent interpretive tradition. The daughter of a Pheonician king, Jezebel becomes queen over Israel through her marriage to Ahab (I Kings 16:31). From this introduction, we know that the Deuteronomistic editor thinks poorly of Jezebel. The fact of her marriage is sandwiched between two negative statements: first, that King Ahab’s sins exceeded those of Jeroboam and, second, that Ahab served Baal. The biblical text does not indicate direct causality between Ahab’s taking Jezebel as a wife and his sinfulness or worship of Baal. Still, the proximity of the statements in I Kings 16:31 creates the association in the mind of the reader—an association strengthened by a later verse that does directly blame Jezebel for Ahab’s misdeeds (I Kings 21:25)...After her death [II Kings 9:30-37], Jezebel is neither mourned nor buried, and the text never speaks of her again. And yet her character is not silenced. Her influence, perhaps greater than any other woman’s in the course of Israelite political history, continues to live on (for better or worse!) in the course of interpretive history. (<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carol A. Newsom</a> [b. 1950], <a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sharon H. Ringe</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1937 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacqueline E. Lapsley</a> [b. 1965], “Jezebel and Her Interpreters”, <i>Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated</i>, 180)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.agnesscott.edu/academics/faculty/tina-pippin.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tina Pippin</a> (b. 1956) acknowledges:
<blockquote>The image of Jezebel is difficult to identify iconographically; her portrait and scenes of her life are rare. Still, she is imaged as the temptress. Both men and women are drawn to her. Even though II Kings 9:37 pronounces that “no one can say, This is Jezebel,” the irony is that “This is Jezebel” is exactly what people said ever since this Deuteronomic proverb. (Pippin, <i>Apocalyptic Bodies: The Biblical End of the World in Text and Image</I>, 35)</blockquote>
<a href=http://timothy-beal.squarespace.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Timothy K. Beal</a> (b. 1963) characterizes:
<blockquote>Elijah’s archenemy and the Deuteronomist’s quintessential other, or “not us,” is Jezebel, a powerful woman, from another land, representing and serving other gods (hundreds of the prophets of Baal and Asherah eat at her table; I Kings 18:19). As the other within, a strong woman married to an often weak and insecure Israelite king [I Kings 16:31], she stands for admixture and emasculation, the ultimate embodiment of threat to Israel’s identity. (<a href=http://www.rhodes.edu/religion/22337_22354.asp STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen R. Haynes</a> [b. 1958], “Teaching the Conflicts, For the Bible Tells Me So”, <i>Professing in the Postmodern Academy: Faculty and the Future of Church-Related Colleges</I>, 188)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.scu.edu/cas/religiousstudies/facultystaff/Regular/carmody.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Denise Lardner Carmody</a> (b. 1935) understands:
<blockquote>The biblical authors especially stigmatized her [Jezebel] because she was a foreigner and a woman. Under both headings, they saw her a seducer. By the time the Deuteronomistic history entered the biblical canon Israel was trying to reconstitute its national life after return from exile. Foreign elements seemed to threaten its historic relationship with God, so the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah proscribed marriage with foreigners [Ezra 9:1-15; Nehemiah 13:1-3]. Jezebel, like the foreign wives of Solomon [I Kings 11:1-8], made useful propaganda. Representing femininity turning all its wiles against God and luring Ahab (her obvious inferior in intelligence and will) to his doom, <i>Jezebel</I> encapsulated in one word the worst scenario the reformers could envision. Thus, she greatly helped their cause. (Carmody, <i>Biblical Woman: Contemporary Reflections on Scriptural Texts</I>, 50)</blockquote>
Despite her decidedly negative image, some interpreters have gleaned some positives from the queen’s life. Jill L. Baker (b. 1964) appreciates:
<blockquote>Although Jezebel had effectively ruled a part of Israel for a short time, she is not recognized as such in the king lists. Her official standing would have been that of queen mother, upon the accession of her son, Ahaziah [I Kings 22:40]. Jezebel serves as an excellent example of a woman serving in the highest position possible. She was educated and cunning; she demanded and obtained the respect of the military, religious leaders, and most of the people. She was, for the most part, a great leader. Her failure was her unwillingness to worship only God, maintaining the Baal and Asherah cults. Because of this she was condemned to death, denied a traditional burial, and her memory defiled [I Kings 21:23; II Kings 9:10, 30-37]. Jezebel serves as both a positive and negative example to women in leadership positions. (Catherine Clark Kroeger [1925-2011] and Mary J. Evans [b. 1949], The Women’s Study Bible: New Living Translation Second Edition, 441)</blockquote>
Jezebel’s death is especially remarkable for its sensational gore (II Kings 9:30-37). The queen is mutilated with only her skull, feet and hands surviving (II Kings 9:35).
<blockquote>They went to bury her, but they found nothing more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. Therefore they returned and told him [Jehu]. And he said, “This is the word of the Lord, which He spoke by His servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, ‘In the property of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel; and the corpse of Jezebel will be as dung on the face of the field in the property of Jezreel, so they cannot say, “This is Jezebel.”’” (II King 9:35-37 NASB)</blockquote>
Emboldened by being anointed king (II Kings 9:1-10), the revolting Jehu is on the war path. After killing Joram (II Kings 9:23-26) and Ahaziah (II Kings 9:27-29), he sets his sights on Jezebel (II Kings 9:30-37). The coup d’état will be complete with the death of the queen.
<p><a href=http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff/search?uun=aulda&search=3&cw_xml=bio.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A. Graeme Auld</a> (b. 1941) contextualizes:
<blockquote>The last words of this chapter (II Kings 9:30-37) belong to Jezebel who has overshadowed the whole narrative ever since I Kings 16:31. She had dared threaten the great man from Tishbe (I Kings 19:1-2) and her death appropriately occurs now just as predicted by Elijah (I Kings 21:23-24). (Auld, <i>I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible)</i>, 185)</blockquote>
The queen’s demise is startlingly graphic (II Kings 9:30-37). <a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/paulrhouse STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul R. House</a> (b. 1958) summarizes:
<blockquote>As when killing Joram [II Kings 9:23-26] and Ahaziah [II Kings 9:27-29], Jehu wastes no time. He identifies two or three “eunuchs,” or “court officials,” willing to betray her and orders them to throw her down [II Kings 9:32-33]. They comply. She bounces against the wall, lands in the street, and dies when horses trample her [II Kings 9:33]. Satisfied that she is dead, Jehu goes to eat [II Kings 9:34]. Almost as an afterthought and contrary to the prophet’s word (II Kings 9:10), he orders some men to bury her, since she was a king’s daughter [II Kings 9:34]; but they find “nothing except her skull, her feet and her hands” [II Kings 9:35]. Dogs have eaten the rest of her. Jehu recognizes that Elijah’s predictions about Ahab and Jezebel have finally all come true [II Kings 9:36-37]. Naboth’s death has been avenged [I Kings 21:11-16]. The only remaining prediction of Elijah regards the fate of Ahab’s descendants [I Kings 21:20-24]. (House, <i>1, 2 Kings (New American Commentary)</I>, 291)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.crandallu.ca/staff/keith-bodner/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Keith Bodner</a> (b. 1967) interprets:
<blockquote>With an alliance in mind, Jezebel arranges her hair and paints her eyes [I Kings 16:30], only to skydive without a parachute courtesy of a couple of nearby eunuchs who throw her down [II Kings 9:32-33]...Consequently, Jezebel ends up as food for rabid dogs [II Kings 9:35] and fertilizer for the fields of Jezreel [II Kings 9:37] more or less as the student prophet declares as he creatively expands the terse words of Elisha into an oracle of queenly doom [II Kings 9:36-37]. (Bodner, <i>Elisha’s Profile in the Book of Kings: The Double Agent</I>, 141)</blockquote>
The exchange between Jehu and Jezebel is revealing (II Kings 9:30-37). T.R. Hobbs (b. 1942) praises:
<blockquote>The details of the death of Jezebel show remarkable dramatic skill and character development [II Kings 9:30-37]. Both Jezebel and Jehu are revealed in their cynicism and callousness. (Hobbs, <i>2 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary)</i>, 118)</blockquote>
<a href=https://rees.lafayette.edu/people/robert-l-cohn/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Cohn</a> (b. 1947) characterizes:
<blockquote>The character of Jehu comes alive...When he first denies to his military comrades he has been anointed, they call him a liar, a fitting prophetic epithet for a man who is exposed to the reader as someone who selectively conceals information [II Kings 9:11-12]. Even when he finally admits the truth to his men, for instance, he omits mention of the oracle against the house of Ahab and proceeds on his own to Jezreel to surprise the unsuspecting Joram [II Kings 9:12-14]. Identified by the lookout as crazed (II Kings 9:20), Jehu verbally evades the messengers of the king. Then, bearing out the messenger’s identification, he slays not only Joram [II Kings 9:23-26] but Ahaziah as well [II Kings 9:27-29]. His subsequent meal within Jezebel’s house while the dogs outside eat Jezebel herself underscores his coldly calculating character [II Kings 9:34-35]. With equal ruthlessness he bullies the protectors of Joram’s descendants to behead their own charges and then slaughters them as murderers, proclaiming his actions the fulfillment of prophecy (II Kings 10:1-11). And the innocent kinsmen of Ahaziah walk into his line of sight, so he commands, “Take them alive!” (II Kings 10:14). In both cases he expresses his vengefulness in his own words. In the case of the annihilation of the followers of Baal the narrator reveals Jehu’s duplicity (“Jehu was acting with guile,” II Kings 10:19). Despite the writer’s clear distaste for Jehu’s conniving and violent character, he has Yhwh praise Jehu’s acts of violence (II Kings 10:30) even as the narrator condemns his cultic sins (II Kings 10:29, 31). (André Lemaire [b. 1942], <a href=http://religion.uga.edu/halpern.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Baruch Halpern</a> [b. 1953] and <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/matthew-j-adams/63/197/63a STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Matthew Joel Adams</a> [b. 1979], “Characterization in Kings”, <i>The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception</I>, 102-03)</blockquote>
Jehu has a singular focus which <a href=http://ellul.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacques Ellul</a> (1912-1994) presumes is misguided:
<blockquote>What Elisha says to the young man is this: “Lead Jehu to an inner chamber, anoint him with the oil of kingship, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord, I anoint you king over Israel,’ then flee, do not tarry” [II Kings 9:2-3]. There is nothing more, no address. The message to Jehu is both radical and also very terse. But this is not the way the young man delivers it. Instead of fleeing at once, he gives an address (as the church often does), and he adds on his own invention: “You shall strike down the house of Ahab...I will avenge on Jezebel the blood of the prophets...the whole house of Ahab shall perish, every male, bond or free...The dogs shall eat Jezebel...” [II Kings 9:6-10] In sum, the young man outlines a program of action for Jehu, which is undoubtedly using the prophecies of Elijah (I Kings 21:19-24), but Elisha does not tell him to do this. It is on this false transmission that the whole career of Jehu is based. We are usually struck by the fierce and bloodthirsty character of Jehu, and this is clear enough. But another and no less decisive element should not be missed, namely, that all Jehu’s work is done in a situation of ambiguity and misunderstanding. (Ellul, <i>The Politics of God and the Politics of Man</I>, 98)</blockquote>
Jezebel knows her assassin is en route and prepares: “She painted her eyes and adorned her head and looked out the window” (II Kings 9:30 NASB). The queen faces her fate by applying makeup.
<p><a href=http://www.saintvincentseminary.edu/people-faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Patrick T. Cronauer</a> researches:
<blockquote>When Jehu entered the city we are told that Jezebel heard about it and that, עיניה בפוך ותשם (“she put eye-shadow on her eyes”) [II Kings 9:30]. The noun, פוך, is defined as “antimony, stibium, black paint, eye-shadow.” It is a very rare term in the Old Testament, occurring only five times and it is considered to be a Late Biblical term. In I Chronicles 29:2 and Isaiah 54:11 it appears with the meaning of antimony or stibium, that is, a type of dark or black precious stones. In Job 42:12 it is found as part of a proper name, הפוך קרן. In its remaining two occurrences [II Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30]...it appears with the meaning of “eye shadow.” (Cronauer, <i>The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9</I>, 55-56)</blockquote>
Matthew B. Schwartz (b. 1945) and <a href=http://www.kalmankaplan.com/j/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kalman J. Kaplan</a> (b. 1941) consider:
<blockquote>Even in facing the coup that would topple Ahab’s family from rule, Jezebel remains astonishingly cool — every inch the queen. She dresses well, puts on her makeup, and stands defiantly at an upper-story window [II Kings 9:30]. Perhaps, with this show of queenly disdain, she hopes to retain the loyalty of her own people and to face down Jehu. As Jehu approaches the palace, she calls out to him, reminding him of the failed plot of Zimri [I Kings 16:9-20] against King Elah years before [II Kings 9:31]. (Schwartz and Kaplan, <i>The Fruit of Her Hands: A Psychology of Biblical Woman</I>, 153)</blockquote>
<a href=https://rees.lafayette.edu/people/robert-l-cohn/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Cohn</a> (b. 1947) informs:
<blockquote>Some critics have suggested that both eye-painting and hair-arranging were preparations for love-making and that Jezebel intended to seduce Jehu [II Kings 9:30]. The word <i>zimrî</I> they take as a common noun meaning “hero” [II Kings 9:31]. But the parallel between Jehu’s treason and Zimri’s is too strong to be ignored [I Kings 16:9-20] and the epithet “murderer of his master” [II Kings 9:31] is hardly designed to flame Jehu’s desire. Jezebel adorns herself because in her own eyes she is still the queen mother, the power behind the throne. From that regal position, looking down from her window, she challenges the authority of the traitor Jehu. (Cohn, <i>2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</i>, 70)</blockquote>
Like billionaire Benjamin Guggenheim (1865-1912) donning his best clothes knowing the ill-fated RMS <i>Titanic</i> was sinking and purportedly claiming, “We've dressed up in our best and are prepared to go down like gentlemen”, Jezebel dresses for the occasion of her death.
<p><a href=http://www.vst.edu/main/about/people/faculty/dutcher-walls STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Patricia Dutcher-Walls</a> (b. 1952) discerns:
<blockquote>As one who grew up in a royal household and lived all her life in the courts of kings she would have been familiar with the brutal ways in which power could be transferred in agrarian monarchies. She does not fail to understand the implications of Jehu’s actions and greets him using the name of a previous traitor, Zimri [II Kings 9:31], who had murdered the king who was his master [I Kings 16:9-20]. Sociologically we must also imagine that she understands that her fate as queen and queen mother of the ousted dynasty is final. She too will die. This would suggest that her makeup and adornment are not preparation to seduce the new king, but to meet him in a full regal fashion [II Kings 9:30]. (Dutcher-Walls, <i>Jezebel: Portraits of a Queen</I>, 135)</blockquote>
Jezebel is defiant until the bitter end. Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) critiques:
<blockquote>The story of her [Jezebel’s] death reveals a woman of courage. Facing the murderer of her husband’s family, the queen makes herself up to look her best and calls Jehu a murderer, comparing him to a long-ago royal assassin who ruled only a week before being assassinated himself [II Kings 9:30-31]. She speaks with dignity, defiance, and grace. Nevertheless, we readers almost cheer when her servants throw her out the window to be eaten by dogs [II Kings 9:33-35]. Her motives may have been pure, but Jezebel has done everything wrong. She is not evil herself, but she is the embodiment of Evil, and the arch-villain of Israel. (Frymer-Kensky, <i>Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories</I>, 214)</blockquote>
Jezebel’s well groomed body is thrown from a window by her attendants where she is then trampled (II Kings 9:33). <a href=http://www.mcmasterdivinity.ca/faculty/core/august-h-konkel STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">August H. Konkel</a> (b. 1948) clarifies:
<blockquote>Though the versions say she is trampled by the horses, the Masoretic text is singular, indicating that she is trampled by Jehu (II Kings 9:33). Jehu goes on to celebrate (II Kings 9:34), possibly a meal in which he secures the support of the leaders at Jezreel and assures them of his goodwill. (Provan, <i>1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 478-79)</blockquote>
Unfazed by his murderous carnage, Jehu enters Jezebel’s home where he proceeds to dine (II Kings 9:34). <a href=https://rees.lafayette.edu/people/robert-l-cohn/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Cohn</a> (b. 1947) assesses:
<blockquote>Jehu’s cold resoluteness is expressed in his reaction to Jezebel’s death: “He went (inside), he ate, and he drank” (II Kings 9:34). While her blood is splattering on the wall, (an allusion to the idiom for the males of the house of Ahab, “pissers against the wall” [II Kings 9:8]), Jehu is filling his stomach. As his horses trample Jezebel, he drinks in her house. When he does order her burial, it is with heavy irony, for he calls her both “an accursed thing” and “a king’s daughter” [II Kings 9:34]. The irony deepens when she cannot be found, and only the skull, feet, and hands remain (II Kings 9:35); the body of Jezebel has been devoured while Jehu himself was devouring her food in her house. (Cohn, <i>2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</i>, 70)</blockquote>
While eating Jehu orders Jezebel buried on account of her status as “a king’s daughter” (II Kings 9:34). <a href=http://www.vst.edu/main/about/people/faculty/dutcher-walls STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Patricia Dutcher-Walls</a> (b. 1952) considers:
<blockquote>In referring to Jezebel’s royal status not as queen or queen mother, her status in Israel, but as a “king’s daughter” [II Kings 9:34], he [Jehu] may be recognizing the international connections that came with Jezebel when she married into Israel’s royal house [I Kings 16:31]. Jehu is radically and abruptly turning Israel away from those connections in taking over the thrown and eliminating the faction that supported them, but he may be cognizant of not deliberately adding insult to his actions by debasing the queen’s body. (Dutcher-Walls, <i>Jezebel: Portraits of a Queen</I>, 136)</blockquote>
As Jehu is now a king, it is in his best interests to accommodate monarchs. <a href=https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Perkins/PDF/People/NelsonCV.ashx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard D. Nelson</a> (b. 1945) appraises:
<blockquote>Already showing a king’s solidarity with royalty (cf. Saul with Agag [I Samuel 15:1-34] and Ahab with Benhadad [I Kings 20:1-43]) in ordering her burial, his evaluation, “accursed woman” [II Kings 9:34], agrees with that of God and the narrator. (Nelson, <i>First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 203)</blockquote>
<a href=http://jewishstudies.umd.edu/faculty/Matthew-Suriano STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Matthew James Suriano</a> (b. 1970) directs:
<blockquote>On the political implications of this passage (as related to burial), note the brief quote: “Royalty, even if of foreign origin, including the royal women, were awarded special treatment in death.” From <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/norma-franklin/8/a89/8b3 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Norma Franklin</a>, “The Tombs of the Kings of Israel,” 2. (Suriano, <i>The Formulaic Epilogue for a King in the Book of Kings in Light of Royal Funerary Rites in Ancient Israel and the Levant</I>, 127)</blockquote>
In the meantime, Jezebel’s body has been devoured by dogs (II Kings 9:35). <a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/iain-w-provan STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Iain W. Provan</a> (b. 1957) comments:
<blockquote>Unmindful of the prophecy (cf. II Kings 9:10), or perhaps simply aware of the stereotypical nature of much prophetic utterance (cf. I Kings 14:11, 16:4) and not taking his part quite literally, Jehu (some time later) orders her burial [II Kings 9:34]. While he has been eating and drinking, however, the <b>dogs</b> have also been at their dinner (II Kings 9:34-36; cf. the link with Ahab’s end in I Kings 22:38). Most of Jezebel is gone. Prophecy has again been fulfilled; it is just as <b>Elijah</b> said (I Kings 21:23; cf. II Kings 9:10). (Provan, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.walterbrueggemann.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggeman</a> (b. 1933) questions:
<blockquote>Does Jehu, now royalty himself, begin to ponder that royalty must respect royalty, for she is “a king’s daughter” (see I Kings 16:31) [II Kings 9:34]? Or does he cynically know beforehand that with trampling horses and hungry dogs it is much too late for royal honors? (Brueggemann, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 388)</blockquote>
Dogs have a recurring presence in the story arc of the Book of Kings. <a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/iain-w-provan>Iain W. Provan</a> (b. 1957) catalogs:
<blockquote><b>Dogs</b> feature prominently throughout: licking up Ahab’s <b>blood</b> instead of Naboth’s (I Kings 21:19); devouring Jezebel <b>by the wall of Jezreel</b> (I Kings 21:23); eating Ahab’s family (with the <b>birds</b>, I Kings 21:24). Ahab’s house is to suffer the same fate as the houses of <b>Jeroboam</b> and <b>Baasha</b> (I Kings 21:22; cf. I Kings 14:10-11, 16:3-4), because Ahab, like them, <b>provoked</b> the LORD to <b>anger</b> and <b>caused Israel to sin</b> (cf. I Kings 14:9, 15-15, 16:2, etc.). (Provan, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</i>)</blockquote>
Janet Howe Gaines (b. 1950) analyzes:
<blockquote>When the death of Ahab...dogs (הכלבים) lick his blood [I Kings 21:19]. Now when Jezebel’s decomposing body is left in the Jezreel streets, dogs again appear on the scene to consume the corpse [II Kings 9:35], which is an intentional insult to the memories of both monarchs, for in the Middle East, dogs were not the pampered pets of today’s Western nations...Dogs were thought to be dirty animals in biblical times. They were the scroungers and refuse eaters of Israelite society and both <i>The Iliad</I> (book 24) and <i>The Odyssey</I> (book 3) indicate that Homer [800-701 BCE]’s Greece also regarded dogs as animals assigned to chewing the rotting corpses of cursed people. Yet there is an even more disturbing, albeit highly improbable, interpretation of the biblical “dogs,” A homonym for the Hebrew word for “dog” means “servant” and is used in biblical days to denote a temple functionary who attends to religious rituals. In the Mount Carmel contest, Jezebel’s priests serving Baal ritually cut themselves during their ecstatic dancing around the altar [I Kings 18:28]. Perhaps, then, the dogs that lick Ahab’s blood and eat Jezebel’s body are really Baal’s temple servants who consume raw flesh as part of their religious ritual (Othniel Margalith [1916-2013] 230). The moral of the story then becomes a warning to those who condone Baal worship practices, including the blood rituals, that they may become victims of those pagan customs. (Gaines, <i>Music in the Old Bones: Jezebel Through the Ages</I>, 88-89)</blockquote>
There may also be some irony at work. <a href=https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/profiles/whbarnes STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William Barnes</a> (b. 1950) records:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.moravianseminary.edu/academics/faculty/appler.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Deborah Appler</a> [b. 1959] (2008) has recently suggested that since dogs served as healers and guides to the afterlife in Canaanite myth, the present account acts also as an Israelite parody of that tradition. (Barnes, <i>1–2 Kings (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary)</i></blockquote>
Lesley Hazleton (b. 1945) adds:
<blockquote>Dogs, the animals that in Phoenecian tradition heal the sick and lead the dead safely into the afterlife, have instead turned on Jezebel. The very creatures she believed would protect her have devoured her [II Kings 9:35]. (Hazleton, <i>Jezebel: The Untold Story of the Bible’s Harlot Queen</I>, 186)</blockquote>
The dogs ravage the queen’s corpse (II Kings 8:35). This is not an isolated incident. The <i>Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</i> surveys:
<blockquote>The behavior of the wild dog most frequently noted by the Bible’s authors is its propensity to lick blood from the dead or dying and to consume carrion. When a person is the object of this behavior, it is considered to be a sign of grave disrespect, because no one has stepped in to prevent this unclean animal from delivering this unseemly service. The disobedience of kings can mean that they and their families will experience this indignity. Both the house of Jeroboam and Baasha are told that their remains will be consumed by dogs (I Kings 14:11, 16:4). A bit later in Kings, Ahab and Jezebel conspire to execute the innocent Naboth and allow the dogs to lick up his blood [I Kings 21:18]. Consequently, the wanton disrespect experienced by Naboth would come home to roost on the day of their deaths, for dogs would lick up the blood of Ahab and devour the remains of Jezebel (I Kings 21:19-24, 22:38; II Kings 9:10,36). The Lord taps into this same behavior of the feral dogs when delivering a prophecy against his chosen people. He will send the “sword to kill and the dogs to drag away” (Jeremiah 15:3). Thus to be eaten or licked by this unclean animal is, in the Bible’s perspective, to be abandoned by all who might otherwise care to save one from this indignity. In the story Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, the latter’s pitiful condition is clearly marked by these words: “Even the dogs came and licked his sores” (Luke 16:21). (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-a-beck/37/430/9a7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John A. Beck</a> [b. 1956], <i>Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/b/blong/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Burke O. Long</a> (b. 1938) supports:
<blockquote>Her [Jezebel’s] body will suffer the curse of nonburial, ignobly eaten by dogs; cf. I Kings 14:11, 16:4, 21:23-24; note similar language in ancient Near Eastern treaty curses, e.g. <i>Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament</I>, 538, § 47; Delbert R. Hillers [1932-1999], <i>Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets</I> [<a href=http://www.gbpress.net/en/biblical/biblica-et-orientalia-.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Biblica et Orientalia</a> 16; <a href=http://www.turismoroma.it/?lang=en STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rome</a>: <a href=http://www.biblico.it/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Pontifical Biblical Institute</a>, 1964]. (Long, <i>2 Kings (Forms of the Old Testament Literature)</i>, 118)</blockquote>
Jezebel’s mutilation is the culmination of this motif. T.R. Hobbs (b. 1942) reviews:
<blockquote>The reference to her scant remains bring to a ghoulish conclusion the prophecies against Jeroboam (I Kings 14:11), Baasha (I Kings 16:4), and Ahab (I Kings 21:19-24). Her husband also had dogs present at his death (I Kings 22:38). (Hobbs, <i>2 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary)</i>, 118)</blockquote>
The phenomenon is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. <a href=http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/b/blong/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Burke O. Long</a> (b. 1938) notes:
<blockquote>The motif of dogs eating a desecrated and abandoned corpse, II Kings 9:10 (also I Kings 14:11, 16:4, 21:24), is found regularly in the maledictory sanctions attached to international treaties, primarily Assyrian, from the ancient Near East; see <a href=http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/faculty.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Moshe Weinfeld</a> [1929-2005], 131-38; Othniel Margalith [1916-2013]. (Long, <i>2 Kings (Forms of the Old Testament Literature)</i>, 124)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.leithart.com>Peter J. Leithart</a> (b. 1959) compares:
<blockquote>She [Jezebel] is a feast for dogs [II Kings 9:35], like the harlot of Revelation (Revelation 19:1-2, 19-21), and is reduced to refuse (II Kings 9:37). Her blood “sprinkles” the wall (הקיר-אל מדמה ויז) (II Kings 9:33), a verb normally used for sprinkling atoning blood on the altar. Having offered his “peace” sacrifice, Jehu goes to eat and drink [II Kings 9:34], celebrating the “supper of the Lamb” now that the harlot is destroyed (Revelation 19:6-10). (Leithart, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 221)</blockquote>
The dogs leave only Jezebel’s skull, hands and feet (II Kings 9:35). Joseph Robinson (b. 1927) comments:
<blockquote><i>The skull, the feet, and the palms of the hands</I> [are]...the parts of the body that were inedible. (Robinson, <i>The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge Bible Commentary)</I>, 91)</blockquote>
Veterinarian <a href=https://www.facebook.com/david.paxton.503 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Paxton</a> speculates:
<blockquote>Given the short span of time between her death and Jehu’s order to bury her body [II Kings 9:33-35], it seems more likely that the dogs dragged parts of Jezebel off to be eaten in peace, rather than devouring her on the spot. It also seems likely that, had the dogs not been disturbed, her extremities also would have disappeared. (Paxton, <i>Why It’s OK To Talk To Your Dog: Co-evolution of People and Dogs</I>, 121)</blockquote>
The dogs leave Jezebel’s skull (II Kings 9:35). <a href=http://www.saintvincentseminary.edu/people-faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Patrick T. Cronauer</a> examines:
<blockquote>The term הנלנלח means “the skull” [II Kings 9:35]. The lemma, הנלנל, occurs twelve times in the Old Testament. This is another Late Biblical Hebrew term that might even be an Aramaism. The root can also mean, “a census, poll, count, a shekel,” and these are the senses found in the majority of the cases. It is found only three times as the object of a verb—in Judges 9:35, II Kings 9:35 and I Chronicles 10:10. It is only in these three cases that it also has the meaning of skull. In Judges 9:35 it refers to “the skull” of Abilmelech whose head was crushed by a millstone dropped from above. In both II Kings 9:35 (Jezebel) and I Chronicles 10:10 (Saul) the term refers to heads which have been detached from the rest of the body. That this is a probably a late usage is seen by the fact that in the older parallel account to the story of Saul’s death and dismemberment in I Samuel 31:10, the text does not speak of dismemberment of the head and of its being attached to the city wall, but rather, it speaks of his entire body being stuck to the wall. (Cronauer, <i>The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Regarding Jezebel’s hands and feet (II Kings 9:35), <a href=http://www.saintvincentseminary.edu/people-faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Patrick T. Cronauer</a> scrutinizes:
<blockquote>The plural form כפות occurs a total of nineteen times. Of these, it is in reference to a ritual utensil ten times (see Numbers 7:84, 86, etc.) It is used in reference to the “soles” of the feet, six times, and it is found three times with reference to the “palms” of the hands (I Samuel 5:4; II Kings 9:35; Daniel 10:10). Only twice does it occur in the sense of hands, or palms of the hands, which have been cut off—in I Samuel 5:4...and II Kings 9:35...The fact that the only two texts that recount the palms of the hands being dismembered from the body are texts dealing with “foreigners” is significant. In I Samuel 5:4 it happens to be Dagon, one of the gods of the Philistines, and in II Kings 9:35 to Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians [I Kings 16:31]. In the mind of the anti-Jezebel redactor, the issue of Jezebel’s “foreignness” is crucial, and he alludes to it throughout his redaction. (Cronauer, <i>The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Though Jezebel is seemingly desecrated beyond recognition, there is enough left of the queen to make a positive identification (II Kings 9:35). In his landmark 1892 book on fingerprints, <a href=http://galton.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sir Francis Galton</a> (1822-1913) cites Jezebel’s case:
<blockquote>We read of the dead body of Jezebel being devoured by the dogs of Jezreel [II Kings 9:35], so that no man might say, “This is Jezebel” [II Kings 9:37] and that the dogs left only her skull, the palms of her and, and the soles of her feet [II Kings 9:35]; but the palms of the hands and the soles of her feet are the very remains by which a corpse might be most surely identified, if impressions of them, made during life, were available. (Galton, <I>Finger Prints</I>, 113)</blockquote>
There has been speculation as to why these particular anatomical parts are left as a remnant (II Kings 9:35). Lesley Hazleton (b. 1954) theorizes:
<blockquote>When Jezebel asked her attendants to prepare her to meet her assassin, they painted her with henna as the sign of rank used regularly at the time by high-status women, especially for ritual events such as temple festivals and royal celebrations [II Kings 9:30]. In the Phoenician epics, henna was the war paint of the warrior goddess Anat, who applied it before she went to do battle with Mot, and it must have been in that spirit that Jezebel had it applied on her forehead, her hands, and her feet for the ritual of her own coming death. Today, henna is still used in many parts of Asia and the Middle East, especially for brides; but it is never used around the mouth since its active agent—a tannin dye—is intensely bitter to the taste, so strong that some people claim they can tell when food has been prepared by someone with hennaed hands...Dogs with their highly developed sense of smell and taste, would certainly never touch anything with henna on it, which is why the wolf-dogs of Jezreel left precisely what they did [II Kings 9:35]. (Hazleton, <i>Jezebel: The Untold Story of the Bible’s Harlot Queen</I>, 187)</blockquote>
Janet Howe Gaines (b. 1950) considers:
<blockquote>Jezebel’s death scene is an excellent example of the Bible’s application of talion laws. When Jehu rides into Jezreel to kill the queen, a great deal of attention is paid to her body parts [II Kings 9:35]. When interment is finally ordered, nothing but a few odd bones—skull, feet, palms—can be located. It is possible that, in preparing to meet Jehu at the window, the queen had just rubbed her face, feet and hands with henna, a reddish dye often used in cosmetics of the day [II Kings 9:30]. The natural scent of henna serves as an animal repellent (L.J.A. Loewenthal [1903-1983] 21) and could explain why those particular body parts are not consumed by dogs. Furthermore, the Talmud suggests that the one good thing Jezebel did during her reign was to use her hands and feet while fulfilling the commandment of dancing with a gladdened heart before a bride. Ergo, God did not allow those body parts to be devoured by dogs. Traditionally, the fate of the queen’s mutilated remains is inexorably linked to Naboth’s mangled corpse [I Kings 21:19]. The talion law demanding life for life has literally been fulfilled. (Gaines, <i>Music in the Old Bones: Jezebel Through the Ages</I>, 87-88)</blockquote>
The Bible does not record the fate of Jezebel’s limited remains. Lesley Hazleton (b. 1945) laments:
<blockquote>We still have no idea what happened to Jezreel’s heads, hands, and feet (II Kings 9:35). Were they left where they were to rot? Were they gathered up and buried? Were they thrown outside the city walls as trash? The Kings account never tells us. They float dreamlike in history, uneaten and unaccounted for. The ancients were right: unburied, they haunt us still. (Hazleton, <i>Jezebel: The Untold Story of the Bible’s Harlot Queen</I>, 187)</blockquote>
What cannot be denied is that much more of Jezebel is gone than survives (II Kings 9:35). <a href=http://www.lizcurtishiggs.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Liz Curtis Higgs</a> (b. 1954) amplifies:
<blockquote>Her [Jezebel’s] wicked heart was history. Ditto with her evil smirk. Everything that made her female was destroyed. The only parts that remained were unidentifiable as belonging to Jez...Today we could check fingerprints and dental records. But back then, hands, feet, and skulls were a dime a dozen. (Higgs, <i>Bad Girls of the Bible: And What We Can Learn from Them</I>, 186)</blockquote>
The result is that Jezebel’s carcass rests as “dung on the face of the field in the property of Jezreel” (II Kings 9:37 NASB). Gail Corrington Streete (b. 1949) judges:
<blockquote>Almost gloatingly, the text describes the once-powerful queen reduced to an unidentifiable collection of <i>disjecta membra</I>, a skull, soles of feet, palms of hands, “like dung on the field” (II Kings 9:35-37). Her daughter Athaliah meets an end that echoes Jezebel’s; she is dragged from the Temple in Jerusalem to the palace, where she is killed at the “horses’ entrance” (II Kings 11:15-16). (Streete, <i>The Strange Woman: Power and Sex in the Bible</I>, 65)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.northpark.edu/Seminary/About-the-Seminary/~/media/380D07752CCC466CB75EE0548C12D27F.ashx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.</a> (b. 1943) interjects:
<blockquote>Dogs devoured her flesh; hence, her corpse would be like dung (NIV “refuse”) in the plot at Jezreel [II Kings 9:37]. The “plot” was the area surrounding the city wall, the place where everyone deposited trash and digestive waste. There, all dung looked alike. Future generations would be unable to say “This is Jezebel” [II Kings 9:37]. (Hubbard, <i>First & Second Kings (Everyman’s Bible Commentary)</i>, 174)</blockquote>
There may also be wordplay involved in this remark (II Kings 9:37). John Gray (1913-2000) notates:
<blockquote>There is, as James A. Montgomery [1866-1949] recognizes (<i>International Critical Commentary</i>, p. 407), possibly a word-play between ‘dung’ (<i>dōmen</I> [II Kings 9:37] and <i>zebel</I> (meaning also ‘dung’ as in the Arabic cognate) in the Hebrew parody of an original element <i>zebūl</I> in the name of the queen (Gray, <i>I & II Kings: A Commentary, Second, Fully Revised Edition (Old Testament Library)</i>, 551)</blockquote>
Lesley Hazleton (b. 1945) editorializes:
<blockquote>Jehu’s judgment reaches for a perfect fit, with Jezebel at last made to match the Hebrew corruption of her name: -zevel, “woman of dung.” One would almost call it poetic perfection, and indeed it was doubtless intended to be exactly that, were the image no so deliberately crude [II Kings 9:37]. (Hazleton, <i>Jezebel: The Untold Story of the Bible’s Harlot Queen</I>, 188)</blockquote>
Jezebel’s “god” will soon suffer the same fate as its devotee. James Richard Linville (b. 1959) follows:
<blockquote>As Jezebel was reduced to dung [II Kings 9:37], so the house of Baal has become a latrine (II Kings 10:27). (Linville, <i>Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity</I>, 193)</blockquote>
The depiction of Jezebel’s demise is unequivocally excessive (II Kings 9:30-37). Carey Walsh (b. 1960) exclaims:
<blockquote>In Jezebel’s case, what a death [II Kings 9:30-37]! After having been thrown out of the window by eunuchs [II Kings 9:32-33], Jezebel was eaten by dogs [II Kings 9:35]. Only her skull, feel, and palms remained (II Kings 9:35)...With Jezebel’s death, the dogs did more than lick up her blood. In fact, it first splashed around on the wall and next on the horses, which trampled her (II Kings 9:33). The dogs then devoured her corpse, leaving only the skull, feet, and palms (II Kings 9:35-36). It is genuinely hard to imagine a scene of greater overkill than this death in Israel’s cultural memory. There is perhaps a faint allusion to Jezebel’s death by having Athaliah killed in ‘the horses’ entrance’ (II Kings 11:16), but otherwise, the text mentions no burial for her. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/diana-edelman/71/675/4a7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Diana V. Edelman</a> [b. 1954] and <a href=http://www.ualberta.ca/~ebenzvi/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ehud Ben Zvi</a> [b. 1951], “Why Remember Jezebel?”, <i>Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods</I>, 327-329)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.walterbrueggemann.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggeman</a> (b. 1933) agrees:
<blockquote>The narrative is at pains to portray the death of Jezebel dismissively with as much shame and humiliation as can be mustered [II Kings 9:30-37]. Her death contrasts with that of Ahaziah who is accorded the honors befitting a king (II Kings 9:28). (Brueggemann, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 388)</blockquote>
The overkill is almost comical. It parallels Vincent Ludwig (Ricardo Montalbon [1944-2007])’s death in the slapstick farce The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988) in which the villain is hit with a stunning cufflink dart and falls from a baseball stadium before being run over in succession by a bus, a steamroller and the <a href=http://www.usc.edu/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">USC</a> marching band.
<p>Lesley Hazleton (b. 1945) recounts:
<blockquote>Jezebel has been submitted to abjection not once, but three times: she has been thrown to the dogs, then eaten by them, then excreted by them [II Kings 9:35, 37]. The degradation has finally reached its limits. What the individual body rejects is rejected by the body politic; Jezebel is beyond the pale. Now the dogs’ dung will dry in the sun, to be eroded by the wind into dust, invisible to the human eye. There will be nothing left of Jezebel—no tomb, no monument, no shrine. (Hazleton, <i>Jezebel: The Untold Story of the Bible’s Harlot Queen</I>, 189)</blockquote>
Perhaps Jezebel’s greatest degradation is that her scant remains prevent a proper burial (II Kings 9:35). Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) discusses:
<blockquote>The burial is thwarted when only parts of her corpse are found [II Kings 9:35]. There is no mention of what happened to the rest. It is assumed, rather, that the reader will still remember Elisha’s pronouncement in I Kings 21:24, which was already repeated in the redactional verse II Kings 9:10a. Elisha prophesied that Jezebel would have no burial so that her spirit would wonder restlessly forever. Thus she has received the most severe punishment that was imaginable in ancient Israel...This redactional addendum clearly states the fulfillment of the prophecy: without burial Jezebel is “like the dung of the field” [II Kings 9:36-37]. This fate amounts to the destruction of a human life that can no longer exist in the shadowy realm of the dead. (Fritz, <i>1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary</I>, 287)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.walterbrueggemann.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggeman</a> (b. 1933) connects:
<blockquote>The contrast is that the body of the despised queen is not only dishonored and turned over to the most brutalizing and ignoble of all animals, but is left without a trace for any possible funeral rite [II Kings 9:35]. Her “burial,” or one like it, is perhaps a basis for Jeremiah’s anticipation for a disgraced king in Jerusalem [Jeremiah 22:18-22]. (Brueggemann, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 388)</blockquote>
Burial was especially important in Hebrew culture. Joseph Robinson (b. 1927) reports:
<blockquote>The Hebrews did not regard death as meaning the separation of the spirit and the body. The spirit was still linked with the body, and its existence in the afterworld of Sheol was dependent upon the continuing existence of the body or at least the bones. Hence proper burial was a matter of great importance, and for a body to be left unburied and, therefore, a prey for birds and wild beasts, was regarded as being the greatest curse that could fall upon any person or family. (Robinson, <i>The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge Bible Commentary)</I>, 91)</blockquote>
Throughout history, failure to bury the dead has often been deemed demeaning. Lesley Hazleton (b. 1945) chronicles:
<blockquote>In both Greece and Rome, suicides and criminals would be deliberately left unburied, to be eaten as carrion, and later still, in medieval England, the bodies of executed traitors would be drawn and quartered, and the pieces strung up to rot. (Hazleton, <i>Jezebel: The Untold Story of the Bible’s Harlot Queen</I>, 186)</blockquote>
Carey Walsh (b. 1960) philosophizes:
<blockquote>Graves...are important markers of cultural memory used to advance a sense of social continuity. Jezebel was denied this quite explicitly: ‘so that no one can say, “This is Jezebel” (II Kings 9:37). She did not receive a burial because there was not enough of her left to bury. She is then denied the security of a grave and the cultural memory it occasioned, of resting with her people, like Ahab had in Samaria...The grave of Moses was also unmarked, but unlike Jezebel, he had one (Deuteronomy 34:1-6). In his case, there presumably was an intact corpse for burial. The cultural memory of Moses was thereby not erased or desecrated in any way. Instead, it was circumscribed to Israel’s past. Moses remained in an unmarked grave in sight of the Promised Land so that the people could continue to their future in that Promised Land. In this way, Joshua could lead the people into the land without the overwhelming memory of Moses hindering their new chapter. The detail of Moses’ grave also served an important ideological function for the post-exilic community...Those living in Yehud could draw comfort from the notion that Moses’ grave, though unmarked, was in sight of the Promised Land, and so symbolically watched over it...With Jezebel, there was no grave marked or unmarked: ‘so that no one can say, “This is Jezebel”’ [II Kings 9:37]. The imagined utterance is itself a shaped memory whereby the story located the loss of reaction subsequent generations would have. It was, in other words, a memory of how she would not even be remembered. She was denied a place in the land of Israel she sought to tamper with as queen. Jezebel was literally dismembered, not to be remembered, yet the Deuteronomistic History’s gory spectacle in fact rendered her unforgettable. The unintentional message was that there is real pleasure to remembering wickedness, and this undercuts the scribal ideological agenda to quell it. Jezebel’s memory flies well beyond Samaria where her husband Ahab was buried [I Kings 22:37] and is vividly recalled in the Deuteronomistic History’s account of her disgraceful, effacing end. There, Jezebel is more memorable than any grave could ever have rendered her. Gore and ignominy guarantee it. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/diana-edelman/71/675/4a7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Diana V. Edelman</a> [b. 1954] and <a href=http://www.ualberta.ca/~ebenzvi/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ehud Ben Zvi</a> [b. 1951], “Why Remember Jezebel?”, <i>Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods</I>, 327-28)</blockquote>
Jezebel serves as a cautionary tale. Carey Walsh (b. 1960) evaluates:
<blockquote>Clearly, the social memory fashioned in Jezebel’s death was about the horrors of exclusion and erasure with the denial of customary burial. Her death would have been understood by people in the Persian period and beyond as a disgraceful and desecrating end [II Kings 9:30-37]. The social memory constructed around Jezebel’s death was admonitory to subsequent generations, to avoid this at all costs...The scribal aim of finishing Jezebel off was shaped for greatest effect for remembering rather than forgetting her. Jezebel was so hated that she would have been better off forgotten by the community. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/diana-edelman/71/675/4a7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Diana V. Edelman</a> [b. 1954] and <a href=http://www.ualberta.ca/~ebenzvi/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ehud Ben Zvi</a> [b. 1951], “Why Remember Jezebel?”, <i>Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods</I>, 329)</blockquote>
Jezebel’s death supplies one of the most graphic scenes in all of scripture (II Kings 9:30-37). Though difficult to read, the Israelites see the queen’s ignominious death as the end of a reign of terror. The implication is clear: Though evil may win some battles, it does not pay off in the end.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why does the Bible document all of the gory details of Jezebel’s death (II Kings 9:30-37)? What is the worst aspect of the wicked queen’s obliteration? Historically, who died the worst death? How important is the way in which one dies? Why do the dogs specifically leave Jezebel’s skull, feet and hands (II Kings 9:35)? Do you care what becomes of your body after you die; why? What does it say of Jehu that he can eat immediately after the assassination of Jezebel (II Kings 9:34)? Are Jehu and Jezebel more alike than different? Is Jehu a hero?</font>
<p>Jezebel’s death closes the book on her in more ways than one (II Kings 9:30-37). <a href=http://www.vst.edu/main/about/people/faculty/dutcher-walls STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Patricia Dutcher-Walls</a> (b. 1952) resolves:
<blockquote>Jezebel’s death scene narratively completes the story of the queen both by “ending” her life and by bringing to a close the prophetic judgments against her [II Kings 9:30-37]. (Dutcher-Walls, <i>Jezebel: Portraits of a Queen</I>, 135)</blockquote>
Jehu declares that Jezebel’s downfall marks the fulfillment of prophecy (II Kings 9:36-37). <a href=https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Perkins/PDF/People/NelsonCV.ashx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard D. Nelson</a> (b. 1945) elucidates:
<blockquote>Jehu interprets this circumstance as a fulfillment of Elijah’s prophecy [II Kings 9:36-37]. This is the second time Jehu himself has interpreted his own actions as prophetic fulfillment [II Kings 9:25-27]. The reader will find out in II Kings 10:17 and II Kings 10:30 that both God and the narrator agree. There is no insistence on an exact mechanical correspondence between prophecy and fulfillment; dung was not mentioned at all in I Kings 21:23. (Nelson, <i>First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 203)</blockquote>
Jehu’s reading of the day’s events has generated debate (II Kings 9:36-37). <a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/iain-w-provan STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Iain W. Provan</a> (b. 1957) concedes:
<blockquote>The end of the chapter throws up a particularly difficult problem, even as it is claiming...fulfillment [II Kings 9:36-37]. The majority of Hebrew manuscripts at I Kings 21:23 have Elijah saying that Jezebel would be eaten by dogs “by the <i>wall</I>” (Hebrew <i>hēl</I>) of Jezreel.” The Masoretic Text at II Kings 9:36 (and also II Kings 9:10) has her eaten <b>on the plot of ground</b> (Hebrew <i>hēleq</I>) <b>at Jezreel</b>. This is most puzzling, when so much is being made here of the link between the two texts. An easy way out of the difficulty would be to argue that I Kings 21:23 has suffered textual corruption. Although a few Hebrew manuscripts do read <i>hēleq</I> there, however, the accidental omission of a <i>q</I> is very difficult to understand in the context. Did the authors mean us to understand, then, that Elijah used <i>both</I> words in talking of Jezebel? (Provan, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</i>)</blockquote>
This alleged discrepancy is not as trivial as it appears on the surface (II Kings 9:36-37). Janet Howe Gaines (b. 1950) corrects:
<blockquote>Actually, I Kings 21:23 predicts that the dogs will consume Jezebel’s body בחל, in the “moat of Jezreel” (JPS translation) and “within the bounds” of Jezreel (NRSV translation). Moving to the II Kings description of where the event actually occurs, the Hebrew word is spelled one consonant different, בחלק, which means “plot of ground” [II Kings 9:36]. In other words, the two texts indicate a slight difference of opinion about where the retribution against Jezebel occurs. Since it is important that Elijah’s prophecy be carried out exactly, this small point matters. It is appropriate for dogs to devour Jezebel “within the bounds” of Jezreel, for therein lies Naboth’s vineyard. (Gaines, <i>Music in the Old Bones: Jezebel Through the Ages</I>, 88)</blockquote>
<a href=http://gtu.edu/academics/faculty-directory/g-i/hens-piazza-gina STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gina Hens-Piazza</a> (b. 1948) accuses:
<blockquote>Jehu is quick to define this dreadful destiny as fulfillment of divine oracle (I Kings 21:23). However, his citation of the word of the Lord far exceeds the judgment and punishment of Jezebel specified in the original oracle [II Kings 9:36-37]. One begins to think this sounds more like someone covering his own tracks. (Hens-Piazza, <i>1–2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries)</I>, 293)</blockquote>
The results of Jehu’s actions comply with the spirit of Elijah’s prophecy (II Kings 9:36-37). <a href=http://www.soniclight.com/constable/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Thomas L. Constable</a> (b. 1939) defends:
<blockquote>Jehu’s commentary on the prophecy (II Kings 9:37) is in harmony with Elijah’s words [I Kings 21:17-29]. The king’s complete lack of respect for Jezebel in her death reflects how he and God, as well as the godly in Israel, viewed this callous sinner who had been directly and indirectly responsible for so much apostasy and wickedness among God’s people. (<a href=http://www.walvoord.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John F. Walvoord</a> [1910-2002] and <a href=http://www.dts.edu/read/roy-zuck-tribute/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Roy B. Zuck</a> [1932-2013], <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament</I>, 557)</blockquote>
The link to prophecy justifies the killing and places it squarely within the auspices of God’s will. <a href=http://www.cst.edu/academics/faculty/profile/marvin-sweeney/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marvin A. Sweeney</a> (b. 1953) situates:
<blockquote>The sixth episode [II Kings 9:31-37] portrays Jehu’s killing of Jezebel with combination of contempt and irony in its efforts to demonstrate that Jehu acts with the authorization of YHWH [II Kings 9:36-37]...It...provides the occasion to illustrate the fulfillment of Elijah’s oracle that the dogs would eat the flesh of Jezreel in the property of Naboth the Jezreelite (see I Kings 21:23). The citation reminds the reader that Jehu acts on the basis of YHWH’s will as communicated by Elijah. (Sweeney, <i>I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 336)</blockquote>
In referencing Elijah’s oracle, Jehu asserts that justice has been served (II Kings 9:36-37). <a href=https://www.northpark.edu/Seminary/About-the-Seminary/~/media/380D07752CCC466CB75EE0548C12D27F.ashx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.</a> (b. 1943) presumes:
<blockquote>Though horrifying to modern readers, Jehu apparently viewed Jezebel’s death as the just, inevitable end of her defiant life [II Kings 9:36-37]...Jehu explained that Elijah had predicted Jezebel’s disappearance (II Kings 9:36; I Kings 21:23). (Hubbard, <i>First & Second Kings (Everyman’s Bible Commentary)</i>, 174)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.scu.edu/cas/religiousstudies/facultystaff/Regular/carmody.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Denise Lardner Carmody</a> (b. 1935) concurs:
<blockquote>Jezebel finally came to a bad end, her flesh eaten by dogs [II Kings 9:35]...In the sight of the biblical authors, her death was simple justice, as it was simple justice for priests of the false foreign gods to be slain...Jezebel died...as she had lived a robust hater. (Carmody, <i>Biblical Woman: Contemporary Reflections on Scriptural Texts</I>, 50)</blockquote>
Jill L. Baker (b. 1964) grants:
<blockquote>Jezebel suffered a death that was commensurate with her great disobedience to the LORD. (Catherine Clark Kroeger [1925-2011] and Mary J. Evans [b. 1949], The Women’s Study Bible: New Living Translation Second Edition, 441)</blockquote>
This sense of retributive justice complies with the book’s theology. <a href=http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/homepage.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Alice L. Laffey</a> (b. 1944) positions:
<blockquote>Jehu’s response to this news is to remark that the word of the Lord through Elijah the prophet concerning Jezebel’s death has been fulfilled (I Kings 21:23) [II Kings 9:36-37]...According to Deuteronomistic theology, one could only expect that Jezebel’s evil behavior would result in evil consequences. (Laffey, <i>First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Commentary)</I>, 116)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.luthersem.edu/faculty/fac_home.aspx?contact_id=choward002 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Cameron B.R. Howard</a> (b. 1980) pronounces:
<blockquote>This scene [II Kings 9:30-37] marks the ultimate triumph of the anti-Jezebel vitriol that has permeated the book of Kings, a release of violent rage not simply by the eunuchs or Jehu, but by the narrative itself. It is as if, by her evisceration, her mutilation, the erasure of her very face, the Deueteronomists could erase the apostasies Jezebel represents from the unfolding history of the fall of Israel and Judah. Yet the idolatry, like the memory of Jezebel herself, persists. (<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Carol A. Newsom</a> [b. 1950], <a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sharon H. Ringe</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1937 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacqueline E. Lapsley</a> [b. 1965] <i>Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated</i>, 177)</blockquote>
As gruesome as Jezebel’s death unfolds, in Jehu’s mind it is justified (II Kings 9:36-37). The queen has merely reaped what she has sown (Galatians 6:7). And the gory consequences of what she has sown leave Jezebel forever etched in the tradition’s collective memory.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Do you think that Jehu fulfills Elijah’s prophecy the way that God intended (I Kings 21:17-29)? Have you ever thought you were on a mission from God? Is justice served in Jezebel’s death? Is it ever our place to dole out God’s justice?</font>
<p>“Deserves death! I daresay he [Gollum] does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice...Even the wise cannot see all ends.” - <a href=http://www.tolkiensociety.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J.R.R. Tolkien</a> (1892-1973), <i>The Lord of the Rings, Part Two: The Two Towers</I>, p. 246Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-41181421496878467732014-09-01T15:00:00.000-07:002014-09-02T06:54:40.192-07:00Nathanael: Guileless Israelite (John 1:47)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZB4po2qQBuI/VAPdFeWkxtI/AAAAAAAAI7E/SumPcX3QvMc/s1600/Nathanael.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="162.667" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZB4po2qQBuI/VAPdFeWkxtI/AAAAAAAAI7E/SumPcX3QvMc/s320/Nathanael.jpg" /></a></div><b>Who was the Israelite in whom Jesus said there was no guile? Nathaniel (John 1:47)</b>
<p>At the end of the Gospel of John’s opening chapter Jesus calls his first apostles (John 1:35-51). The disciple whose call receives the most narrative space is Nathanael (John 1:45-51). His friend Philip first encounters Jesus and is convinced he is “Him of whom Moses...and...the Prophets wrote” (John 1:45 NASB). When Philip tells his companion that the long awaited candidate is from Nazareth, Nathanael expresses skepticism, famously asking, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46 NASB). In response, Philip invites Nathanael to come and see for himself (John 1:46).
<p>Nathanael’s incredulity does not prevent him from meeting Jesus. But before he can utter a word, upon seeing his future follower for the first time, Jesus inexplicably compliments him (John 1:47).
<blockquote>Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” (John 1:47 NASB)</blockquote>
Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) locates:
<blockquote>It is in the final pericope of this section on discipleship and confession [John 1:35-51] that Nathanael appears (John 1:43-51)...The entire sequence of vocation and confession scene culminates in the encounter between Jesus and Nathanael, who appropriately bears an Old Testament name. (Collins, <i>These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel</i>, 12)</blockquote>
Nathanel’s divine appointment with Jesus resembles the material which precedes it. (John 1:35-51). Sjef Van Tilborg (1939-2003) links:
<blockquote>Philip becomes active as the one who is called last [John 1:43-45]. The story which is being told is a rehash with new names and new facts of the story-scene between Peter, Andrew and Jesus [John 1:35-42] (cf. Hans-Jürgen Kuhn [b. 1946] 1988, 214ff.). Nathanael represents...another model of calling. He needs to be convinced before he will commit himself [John 1:46-51]. (Van Tilborg, <i>Imaginative Love in John</I>, 115)</blockquote>
The passage also correlates with Jesus’ previous exchange with John the Baptist (John 1:29-34). Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) associates:
<blockquote>The similarity with the events of the previous day continues. Just as John sees Jesus walk by and says, “Behold the lamb of God” (ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς του θεου, John 1:36), Jesus sees Nathanael coming to him and says, “Behold a true Israelite” (ἴδε ἀληθως ’Ισραλίτης, John 1:47). (Hera, <i>Christology and Discipleship in John 17</I>, 56)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.stu.edu/theology/FacultyStaff/Faculty/Stovell,Beth/tabid/4230/Default.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Beth M. Stovell</a> (b. 1978) supports:
<blockquote>In John 1:47, Jesus’ initial encounter with Nathanael uses an almost identical lexical and syntactical structure to the initial encounter between Jesus and John the Baptist in John 1:29. Just as John the Baptist introduces new information by calling Jesus the Lamb of God [John 1:29], Jesus provides new information through his announcement that Nathanael is a true Israelite [John 1:47]. (Stovell, <i>Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King</I>, 143)</blockquote>
Relatively speaking, John spends a large amount of space detailing Jesus’ conversation with Nathanael (John 1:45-51). <a href=http://apps.sebts.edu/FacultyUploads/David%20Beck%20CV.pdf STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David R. Beck</a> (b. 1955) characterizes:
<blockquote>Jesus’ meeting and dialogue with Nathanael is the most extended of the “snapshot” encounters which conclude the first chapter [John 1:47-51]. For an informed reader/critic, much significant symbolism connects his encounter with messianic hopes of ancient Israel. (Beck, <i>The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel</I>, 48)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.wfu.edu/faculty/faculty-listings/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gail R. O’Day</a> (b. 1954) observes:
<blockquote>These verses [John 1:47-50] comprise the longest conversation between Jesus and a disciple in chapter 1 [John 1:1-51]. Jesus reveals the most about himself to the one who expressed skepticism and doubt (cf. the Thomas story, John 20:24-29). (O’Day, <i>Luke, John (New Interpreter’s Bible)</I>, 532)</blockquote>
M. J. J. Menken (b. 1944) delineates:
<blockquote>John 1:43-51 is made up of two parts: John 1:43-44 and John 1:45-51. In the first part the call of Philip is related, and in the second part it is narrated how Philip brings Nathanael to Jesus and how Nathanael and Jesus meet. The second part displays, in turn, a bipartition: it begins with a conversation between Philip and Nathanael (John 1:45-46); then follows the conversation between Jesus and Nathanael (John 1:47-51). The dialogue in John 1:45-46 evidently leads up to what follows (cf. John 1:45 with John 1:41 and John 1:46cd with John 1:39ab), and should be considered as an introduction to the dialogue of Jesus and Nathanael, not as the conclusion of the call of Philip. (Menken, <i>Numerical Literary Techniques in John: The Fourth Evangelist’s Use of Numbers of Words and Syllables</I>, 65)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.syromalabarchurch.in/priest.php?id=4586 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Benny Thettayil</a> (b. 1967) simplifies:
<blockquote>In the instance of Jesus’ encounter with Nathanael...a successful missionary contact is seen [John 1:45-51]. Nathanael listens to the preacher [John 1:47], probes the matter [John 1:47-48], raises objections [John 1:48], and finally comes to Jesus [John 1:49]. (Thettayil, <i>In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel</I>, 279)</blockquote>
John’s gospel often depicts Jesus engaged in intimate dialogue. C.F.D Moule (1908-2007) documents:
<blockquote>The Fourth Gospel is full of encounters between Jesus alone with an individual or with very small groups: two disciples (John 1:38), Peter (John 1:42), Philip (John 1:43), Nathanael (John 1:47), Nicodemus (John 3:1-21), the Samaritan woman (John 4:7-26), the infirm man (John 5:2-9), the brothers of Jesus (John 7:6), the blind man (John 9:1-12), the Bethany family (John 11:17-46, 12:1-8), the Greeks (John 12:20-26). (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-orton/69/918/173 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Orton</a>, “The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel”, <i>The Composition of John’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum</I>, 33)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/religion/faculty/anderson.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul N. Anderson</a> (b. 1956) catalogs:
<blockquote>Quite distinctive are the Johannine presentations of dialogues with Jesus: with John’s disciples (John 1:35); Nathanael (John 1:47-51); the mother of Jesus and the servants (John 2:1-11); Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (John 2:13-23, 5:16-47, 7:15-52, 8:12-59, 10:22-39); Nicodemus (John 3:1-21); the Samaritan woman (John 4:4-26, 28-30, 39-42); Jesus’ disciples (4:31-38, 6:5-13, 60-66, 9:1-7, 11:1-16, 14:1-31, 16:17-33, 21:2-14); the royal official (John 4:46-54); the invalid (John 5:5-15); the Galilean crowd (John 6:25-40); the <i>Ioudaioi</I> (John 6:41-59); Peter (John 6:67-70, 13:1-20, 31-38, 21:15-23); the brothers of Jesus (John 7:1-10); the man born blind an the Judean Pharisees (John 9:35-10:21); Mary and Martha (John 11:17-45); Judas (John 12:4-7); the Hellenists and the Jerusalem crowd (John 12:20-36); the Beloved Disciple and Judas (John 13:21-30); the soldiers (John 18:1-9); the High Priest and the guard (John 18:19-24); Pilate (John 18:18-19:16); Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18); and Thomas (John 20:24-29). (Anderson, <i>The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John</I>, 81)</blockquote>
The conversation between Jesus and Nathanael is rich and contains multiple layers (John 1:45-51). <a href=http://www.johnkillinger.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Killinger</a> (b. 1933) marvels:
<blockquote>On the surface, this is a light-hearted exchange [John 1:47-51]. But John often packs even the simplest scene with great significance. (Killinger, <i>A Devotional Guide to John: Th Gospel of Life Eternal</I>, 24)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1928 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Beverly R. Gaventa</a> (b. 1948) concurs:
<blockquote>At one level...the second part of the lection [John 1:43-51] appears to be little more than an amusing anecdote. Nathanael, whose skepticism prompts him to doubt that anything good can come from Nazareth, meets Jesus, who abruptly declares him to be free from deceit [John 1:46-47]. Of course, in the Fourth Gospel stories often take place at more than one level simultaneously, and this story conforms to that pattern. (<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=2 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggeman</a> [b. 1933], <a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=3 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Charles B. Cousar</a> [b. 1933], Gaventa and <a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=14 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James D. Newsome</a> [b. 1931], <i>Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV–Year B</I>, 112)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.denverseminary.edu/academics/faculty/member/86444/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig L. Blomberg</a> (b. 1955) acknowledges:
<blockquote>The most difficult interpretative questions in John 1 surround Jesus’ dialogue with Nathanael (John 1:47-51). John 1:47b involves a play on words that requires knowledge of Hebrew to understand. (Blomberg, <i>The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary</I>, 83)</blockquote>
Nathanael enters the text with no introduction aside from his name (John 1:45). Named characters are a staple of John’s gospel. George Mlakuzhyil (b. 1942) footnotes:
<blockquote>In a number of pericopes different individual disciples are mentioned by name (e.g. Andrew: John 1:40, 44, 6:8, 12:22; (Simon) Peter: John 1:40, 41, 42, 6:8, 68, 13:6, 9, 24, 36, 18:10, 15, 25, 20:2, 6, 21:2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17; Philip: John 1:43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 6:5, 7, 12:21, 22, 14:8; Nathanael: John 1:45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 21:2; Judas (Iscariot): John 6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 26, 29, 18:2, 3, 5; Jude: John 14:22; Thomas: John 11:16, 14:5, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 21:2; Joseph of Arimathea: John 19:38). The Beloved Disciple, however, is spoken of without mentioning his name in John 13-21 (John 13:23, 18:15, 16, 19, 26, 26, 20:2, 3, 4, 8, 21:7, 20, 23, 24).
(Mlakuzhyil, <i>The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel</i>, 553)</blockquote>
Nathanael is the first of Jesus’ disciples to be given depth (John 1:45-51). <a href=http://www.luthersem.edu/faculty/fac_home.aspx?contact_id=ckoester STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig R. Koester</a> (b. 1953) depicts:
<blockquote>The first disciple to be portrayed in some detail is Nathanael [John 1:45-51]. On a primary level, Nathanael is an individual who is dubious about Philip’s claim to have found the one who fulfills Israel’s Scriptures [John 1:45-46]. Instead of responding with a confession of faith, Nathanael asks the disparaging question, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). His skepticism sets him apart from the disciples mentioned earlier, and shows that Nathanael is an individual who thinks for himself. Despite his question, however, Nathanael goes to meet Jesus [John 1:47]. (Koester, <i>Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community</I>, 63)</blockquote>
Nathanael does not appear in the Synoptic gospels. This is not surprising as Jesus’ disciples are presented differently in John. For instance, “The Twelve” as a collective are scarce in the Fourth Gospel.
<p><a href=https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.trumbower STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jeffrey A. Trumbower</a> (b. 1960) inspects:
<blockquote>John refers to “the twelve” only twice in John 6:66-71 and again in John 20:24. Unlike Mark 3:14-19, [and its] parallels [Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16], John never gives a list of “the twelve,” and if we look through the narrative we can identify only seven members of this group: Andrew [John 1:40, 44, 6:8, 12:22], an unnamed disciple [John 1:37-40] (probably the one later termed “the Beloved Disciple” [John 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21]), Peter [John 1:40, 41, 42, 6:8, 68, 13:6, 9, 24, 36, 18:10, 15, 25, 20:2, 6, 21:2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17], Philip [John 1:43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 6:5, 7, 12:21, 22, 14:8], Nathanael [John 1:45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 21:2], Thomas (the “twin”) [John 11:16, 14:5, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 21:2], Judas Iscariot [John 6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 26, 29, 18:2, 3, 5], and another Judas (cf. Luke 6:16) [John 14:22]. The other five are neither mentioned nor named in John 1-20 [John 1:1-20:31]. Of the seven who are identified, two have no counterparts in the Synoptics: Nathanael and the Beloved Disciple. (Trumbower, <i>Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John</I>, 130)</blockquote>
Attempts have been made to harmonize John’s presentation of Nathanael with figures from the Synoptics (John 1:45-51, 21:2). <a href=https://www.tcd.ie/provost/history/former-provosts/jh_bernard.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Henry Bernard</a> (1860-1927) reconciles:
<blockquote>Nathanael has been identified, <i>e.g.</I> by Ernest Renan [1823-1892] and Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], with Bartholomew because (1) in the Synoptic lists of the apostles, Philip is associated with Batholomew as he is here with Nathanael [Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; John 1:45-46], and (2) while the name Nathanael does not occur in the Synoptists, Bartholomew (which is only a patronymic, <i>Bar Tholmai</I>) is not found in John. (Bernard, <i>the Gospel According to St. John, Volume 1 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 62)</blockquote>
Bartholomew is not the only candidate that has been posited as being synonymous with Nathanael. <a href=http://enet.cn.edu/profiles/Borchert.pdf STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gerald L. Borchert</a> (b. 1932) informs:
<blockquote>The most frequent linkage is with Bartholomew...The linkage with Simon the Cananean has obviously resulted from the fact that Nathanael was from Cana (John 21:2). The link with Matthew is a clever attempt at relating the meaning of names—Matthew = gift of the Lord, and Nathanael = gift of God. For further discussion see Urban Holzmeister [1877-1953], “Nathanael fuitne idem ac S. Bartholomaeus?” <a href=http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/><i>Biblica</I></a> 21 (1940): 28-39. (Borchert, <i>John 1-11 (New American Commentary)</i>, 147)</blockquote>
Nathanael is not a frequently recurring character in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:45-49, 21:2). He reappears noticeably less than the other disciples introduced in the book’s opening chapter (John 1:1-51).
<p><a href=http://www.christopherwskinner.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Christopher W. Skinner</a> (b. 1973) counts:
<blockquote>Andrew appears three times (John 1:40-45, 6:8, 12:22), Simon Peter appears six times (John 1:40-44, 6:68, 13:6-37, 18:10-27, 20:2-6, 21:2-21), Philip appears four times (John 1:43-48, 6:5-7, 12:21-22, 14:8-9), and Nathanael appears only twice (John 1:43-49 and John 21:2). (Skinner, <i>John and Thomas — Gospels in Conflict?: Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question</I>, 43)</blockquote>
Though introduced at roughly the same time as the famed follower Peter (John 1:40-42), Nathanael falls by the wayside. Bradford B. Blaine, Jr. (b. 1960) explains:
<blockquote>Peter is one of two disciples who appear in the opening call narrative <i>and</I> the final resurrection scene (the other being Nathanael), and is therefore a prominent witness to the entire career of Jesus. Peter may be <i>the</i> most prominent witness to the entire career of Jesus, for, as is shown by Margaret Pamment in “The Fourth Gospel’s Beloved Disciple,” <a href=http://ext.sagepub.com/><I>Expository Times</I></a> 94 (1983): 365, John’s Gospel shows “no biographical interest” in Nathanael. (Blaine, <i>Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple</i>, 2)</blockquote>
John F. O’Grady (b. 1939) portrays:
<blockquote>Nathanael appears only in the Johannine tradition. His first appearance occurs in the call of the first disciples (John 1:43-51), and he reappears in the final chapter with the other disciples as they go fishing [John 21:2]. The first appearance can be viewed as a transformative vocation scene. The conversation between Jesus and Nathanael seems somewhat contrived in order to lead to the great testimony by Nathanael: “You are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel” (John 1:49). (O’Grady, <i>According to John: The Witness of the Beloved Disciple</I>, 22)</blockquote>
Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) adds:
<blockquote>John portrays Nathanael as a disciple who believes in Jesus even before witnessing the signs (John 2:11). Yet, he plays no further tole in the narrative. He only reappears briefly in John 21:2. (Hera, <i>Christology and Discipleship in John 17</I>, 58)</blockquote>
Jesus’ encounters with his newfound disciples in John’s first chapter accent different facets of his identity (John 1:35-51). <a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/>R. Alan Culpepper</a> (b. 1946) exposes:
<blockquote>In John 1...the characters serve the plot function of introducing Jesus by means of confessions and declarations that echo or reference the scriptures and by referring to his role as one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit, take away the sins of the world, and serve as the Messiah [John 1:41], King of Israel [John 1:49], and eschatological Son of Man [John 1:51]. While both the Jewish groups and the disciples (with the exception of Nathanael, who is mentioned later only in passing in John 21:2) will reappear in later scenes and receive a higher degree of characterization, it is clear from this chapter that their roles are tightly integrated with the plot development. (<a href=http://www.christopherwskinner.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Christopher W. Skinner</a> [b.1973], “The Weave of the Tapestry: Character and Theme in John”,<i>Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John</I>, xxi)</blockquote>
Anthony Tyrrell Hanson (1916-1991) praises:
<blockquote>Nathanael is treated as a model disciple. His place is later taken by the beloved disciple [John 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21]. (Hanson, <i>The Prophetic Gospel: Study of John and the Old Testament</I>, 40)</blockquote>
Though a minority view, some interpreters have even seen Nathanael as John’s enigmatic “Beloved Disciple” (John 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21). <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-lincoln/25/2ba/989 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andrew T. Lincoln</a> (b. 1944) reports:
<blockquote>Occasionally Nathanael has been proposed as the Beloved Disciple [John 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21] (see <a href=http://www.sarum.ac.uk/college-community/staff/academic/david-catchpole STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Catchpole</a> [b. 1938] 2000:162-72 for recent advocacy of this). Nathanael is mentioned at the very beginning and end of the narrative (John 1:43-51, 21:2) and is not known to the Synoptics. His confession about Jesus in John 1:49 forms the climax to the responses of the first four disciples to Jesus, matches that in the purpose statement of the Gospel (John 20:31) and shows him to have greater insight than Peter, as will be the case in the later comparisons of the Beloved Disciple and Peter. In addition, Jesus sees him as an Israelite in whom there is no deceit (John 1:47), a representative of the new Israel, making him a candidate for Jesus’ special affection and choice as successor, and he is promised that he will see greater things (John 1:50) and the Beloved Disciple is to be the one who sees the blood and water flowing from the crucified Jesus and sees the empty tomb. Of course, if Nathanael is meant to be the Beloved Disciple, this would rule out the view of many that the other disciple of John 1:37-40 constitutes the first anonymous appearance of the Beloved Disciple in the narrative. More importantly, it does not explain why, having named this disciple at the outset, the evangelist then chooses not to make any explicit link between him and the Beloved Disciple and to hide this identification in the rest of the narrative. (Lincoln, <i>The Gospel according to Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentary)</i>, 21)</blockquote>
Regardless of what associations one draws to the disciple, upon hearing Philip’s assessment of Jesus, Nathanael openly questions the candidate’s origins (John 1:46).
<p>Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) follows:
<blockquote>The author draws attention to the encounter between Jesus and Nathanael [John 1:45-51]. It is introduced by a return to the question of origins [John 1:46]. Nathanael’s first words ask whether an unknown and insignificant northern town could be the home of the one who fulfills the scriptures: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). (Moloney, <i>Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel: John 1-4</i>, 71)</blockquote>
<a href=http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/ankelly/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Anthony J. Kelly</a> (b. 1938 and Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) comment:
<blockquote>Nathanael, in the directness for which he will be commended, seems to sense the self-assertiveness of the disciples and the narrowness of their expectations. He poses his ironic question, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). Still, a significant contact has been made. (Kelly and Moloney, <i>Experiencing God in the Gospel of John</I>, 68)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.tsm.edu/faculty_profiles/the_rev_dr_rodney_a_whitacre STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rodney A. Whitacre</a> (b. 1949) evaluates:
<blockquote>Nathanael’s question is usually understood as a negative one [John 1:46], though some of the church fathers took the tone as positive—that something good could come from Nazareth (<a href=http://www.westcotthort.com/>Brooke Foss Westcott</a> [1825-1901] 1908:1:55). It is probably neither entirely negative nor positive but simply a genuine question, expressing his doubts. (Whitacre, <i>John (IVP New Testament Commentary)</I>, 73)</blockquote>
Many have seen the question as evidence of regional prejudice (John 1:46). <a href=http://asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) speculates:
<blockquote>Perhaps Nathanael’s hostility is conditioned by the “prophet from one’s own country” mentality (John 4:44; Matthew 13:54-57; Luke 4:24), but more likely from civic rivalry in the region, which was common more generally in antiquity. (Keener, <i>The Gospel of John: A Commentary</I>, 484)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael Card</a> (b. 1957) bolsters:
<blockquote>His response, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” [John 1:46] reveals the common attitude toward Nazareth in particular and the area of Galilee in general. The fact that Nathanael himself is from Cana in Galilee (John 21:2) makes the statement all the more remarkable. When we realize that those words were spoken by a fellow Galilean, we understand that they do not represent a scathing comment from Nathanael but rather a sad statement of common opinion. (Card, <i>John: The Gospel of Wisdom (<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/#!biblicalimagination/c1ild STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Biblical Imagination Series</a>)</I>, 45)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.craddocksermons.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fred B. Craddock</a> (b. 1928) admits:
<blockquote>The response is a reasonable one: the credentials of Jesus hardly qualify him as the one described by Moses and the Prophets as the people’s deliverer [John 1:45-46]. Those among us who regularly evaluate strangers by place of origin, residence, family, education and station should not find Nathanael’s response out of order. (Craddock, <i>John (Knox Preaching Guides)</I>, 20)</blockquote>
The problem of Jesus’ origins is directly related to the incarnation and will plague him throughout his ministry. <a href=http://www.winebrenner.edu/ProspectiveStudents/Academics/Faculty/DrJamesLResseguie.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James L. Resseguie</a> (b. 1945) assesses:
<blockquote>“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). The irony of mistaken assumption is obvious; but there is more to Nathanael’s judgment than the mere enjoyment of a victimized perception. By overstating his case (“anything good”), he voices cliché that begs for subversion. He wonders how the Messiah can come out of so insignificant a place as Nazareth. The problem could not be stated more clearly—or more poignantly—than the way Nathanael phrases it. Familiar expectations cloud a reality that is new and unfamiliar, and therefore surprising actions (such as something good coming out of Nazareth) appear at best dubious. More to the point, Nathanael questions how God acts in this world and does not recognize that “God’s action is surprising and incredible; and the offence of the Messiah’s coming from Nazareth belongs...to the offence of the incarnation of the Logos.” Philip’s reply to Nathanael, “come and see,” resolves his “disparaging doubt,” for faith, in this instance, is the only way to see the strange in the ordinary. (Resseguie, <i>The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John</I>, 30-31)</blockquote>
Tellingly, Philip does not defend Nazareth, but rather Jesus (John 1:46-47). Nathanael’s claim goes uncontested. <a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael Card</a> (b. 1957) notices:
<blockquote>Philip knows Nathanael well enough not to argue. Instead he issues the invitation that is at the heart of all true evangelism: “Come and see” [John 1:46]. (Card, <i>The Parable Of Joy: Reflections On The Wisdom Of The Book Of John</i>, 19)</blockquote>
Nathanael takes Philip up on his offer (John 1:46-47). C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) presumes:
<blockquote>Nathanael is willing to put his prejudice to the test of experience (J.N. Sanders [1913-1961] and B.A. Mastin [b. 1938]). (Barrett, <i>The Gospel According to St. John</I>, 185)</blockquote>
<a href=http://ai.connectingmembers.com/AboutUs/FacultyandAdministration/MaryMargaretPazdanOP.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mary Margaret Pazdan</a> (b. 1942) tracks:
<blockquote>In a typical challenge-riposte style, Nathanael replies, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” [John 1:46] Philip echoes Jesus’ invitation to Andrew and the other disciple, “Come and see” (John 1:39 [John 1:46])...The narrator does not even give Nathanael time to make a decision. Suddenly, Jesus is coming toward him. He praises him as an Israelite “in whom there is no deceit” (John 1:47). (Pazdan, <i>Becoming God’s Beloved in the Company of Friends: A Spirituality of the Fourth Gospel</I>, 33)</blockquote>
Philip and Nathanael receive Jesus differently, each in their own way (John 1:43-51). <a href=https://www.facebook.com/olbricht STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Thomas H. Olbricht</a> (b. 1929) contrasts:
<blockquote>Nathanael was not readily impressible or easily taken in. He had his opinion of those gullible persons who believed almost everything. Philip, however, was so captivated by Jesus that he could not restrain himself. (<a href=http://www.lipscomb.edu/bible/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dave Fleer</a> [b. 1953] and <a href=http://hst.edu/our-community/faculty/bland/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dave Bland</a> [b. 1953], “Nathanel, a Disciple by Water and the Word,” <i>Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines</I>, 94)</blockquote>
There are benefits to doubt. <a href=http://www.newbigin.net/>Lesslie Newbigin</a> (1909-1998) interprets:
<blockquote>Nathanael is sceptical [John 1:46]—like Thomas later [John 20:24-29]. Intelligent scepticism is not condemned, for it is the necessary balance which preserves the distinction between genuine faith and foolish credulity. It is part of what it means to “walk in the light” [John 8:12, 12:35]. There is always tension and conflict between the radical newness of the gospel and the necessary conservatism, by which any human culture maintains its integrity. This is always a central issue in genuine missionary communication. The new is only received if it becomes part of the intellectual and cultural world of those who hear; yet it is not received unless that world is radically questioned. So scepticism is a legitimate starting point...But it cannot have the last word, or nothing new will be learned. (Newbigin, <i>The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel</I>, 21-22)</blockquote>
Noticeably, Jesus does not chastise Nathanael for his remark (John 1:46-47). <a href=http://www.insight.org/about/chuck-swindoll.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Charles R. Swindoll</a> (b. 1934) charts:
<blockquote>Jesus didn’t rebuke Nathanael. Instead, He peered into the man’s soul and called Nathanael an honest forthright Israelite [John 1:47]. Then, to help Nathanael overcome his sincere skepticism, Jesus offered a small measure of supernatural evidence [John 1:48]. (Swindoll, <i>John (Swindoll’s Living Insights New Testament Commentary)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael Card</a> (b. 1957) juxtaposes:
<blockquote>When Jesus sees them approaching, he who does not need to be told about a person refers to Nathanael as a “true Israelite” in whom there is no deceit [John 1:47] . Jesus’ graceful response to Nathanael is in stark contrast to Nathanael’s original negative opinion of Jesus [John 1:46]. (Card, <i>John: The Gospel of Wisdom (<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/#!biblicalimagination/c1ild STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Biblical Imagination Series</a>)</I>, 45)</blockquote>
John R. Claypool (1930-2005) preaches:
<blockquote>Notice the sharp contrast between the ways that Jesus and Nathanael encountered each other. Nathanael scoffed at the idea that Jesus could be the Messiah [John 1:46], while Jesus focused on the positive aspects of Nathanael [John 1:47]. We all have a choice as we interact with people around us. We can look for their faults or we can focus on their good qualities. (Claypool, <i>The First to Follow: The Apostles of Jesus</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Jesus proclaims Nathanael to be “an Israelite...in whom there is no deceit” (John 1:47 NASB). Jesus often makes similar critical assessments in the Fourth Gospel.
<p><a href=http://simpsonu.edu/Pages/Academics/Majors/Undergraduate/Theology.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Jackson Painter</a> (b. 1961) surveys:
<blockquote>In chapter one, Jesus declares a new name for Simon—Cephas—which John goes on to translate as “Peter” (Greek <i>petros</I> meaning rock) [John 1:42]. A few verses later Jesus says of Nathaniel, “Look! A true Israelite in whom there is no guile” (John 1:47). These statements of truth about particular individuals occur throughout John: Nicodemus (John 3:10), the Samaritan woman (John 4:17), the royal official (John 4:48—though this instance might be seen as a provocation to faith rather than a witness statement), Judas (John 6:70, 13:21), and Peter (John 13:38, 21:18). John makes a particular comment about Jesus’ perception of people in John 2:24-25: “But Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them because he knew everything, indeed he had no need for anyone to <i>testify</I> about a person, for he knew what was in a person.” (Jackson, <i>The Gospel of John: A Thematic Approach</I>, 64-65)</blockquote>
<p><a href=http://asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) probes:
<blockquote>Jesus’ revelation of Nathanael’s true identity (John 1:47) parallels his analogous revelation of Peter in John 1:42. Jesus contextualizes his revelation to address the seeker’s personal state. People sometimes expected miracle workers in Greco-Roman and Jewish tradition to be able to lay bare human heats or predict the future, but in the context of the Fourth Gospel Jesus’ insight is divine and not merely human in nature (John 2:24-25). (Keener, <i>The Gospel of John: A Commentary</I>, 485)</blockquote>
Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) appraises:
<blockquote>Jesus knows people’s identities, deep down inside, and he wants <i>them</I> to know who they are or are going to be, as well, and to know what he thinks of them...“Nathanael, you are the real thing” [John 1:47]...Perhaps Nathanael will have occasions to doubt his reality, his lack of guile, his authenticity — it should probably not surprise us if the more authentic a person is the more apt he or she might be to doubt one’s own authenticity. But Jesus’ word is Lord. (Bruner,<i>The Gospel of John: A Commentary</I>, 111)</blockquote>
Jesus can accurately represent those whom he encounters because of the static nature of John’s characters. <a href=https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.trumbower STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jeffrey A. Trumbower</a> (b. 1960) explains:
<blockquote>Nathanael, whom Philip finds, is described by Jesus as “truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit” (John 1:47). Jesus’ knowledge of what is “in” a human being is a recurring theme of the Fourth Gospel, and is very much tied in with the fixedness of the Johannine characters (John 2:23-25, 5:42, 6:64, 11:9-10). It is not simply the case that Jesus knows what will happen, but rather, he knows (as does our narrator) the fixed characteristics of each person. While misunderstandings and progression of faith do take place, the personalities and types of responses do not change for any character in the gospel, and there are no repentant persons. (Trumbower, <i>Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John</I>, 70)</blockquote>
<a href=http://philipyancey.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip Yancey</a> (b. 1949) appreciates:
<blockquote>Unlike most men I know, Jesus...loved to praise other people. When he worked a miracle, he often deflected credit back on the recipient: “Your faith has healed you” [Matthew 9:22; Mark 5:34, 10:52; Luke 7:50]. He called Nathanael “a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false”. [John 1:47] Of John the Baptist, he said there was none greater born of women [Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28]. Volatile Peter he renamed “the Rock” [Matthew 16:18; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; John 1:42]. When a cringing woman offered him an extravagant act of devotion, Jesus defended her against critics and said the story of her generosity would be told forever [Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9]. (Yancey, <i>The Jesus I Never Knew</I>, 88-89)</blockquote>
In making this claim, Jesus’ seeming clairvoyance is on full display (John 1:47). <a href=http://sfts.academia.edu/HermanWaetjen STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Herman C. Waetjen</a> (b. 1929) apprises:
<blockquote>Nathanael heeds Philip’s invitation; he comes in order to see. Jesus, however, is already aware of him as he approaches and exclaims, “Look, truly an Israelite in whom there is no guile!” [John 1:47] His seeing, whether purely empirical or an insight engendered by the perspicacity of the soul, appears to be a penetrating discernment that enables him to perceive Nathanael’s integrity as a member of God’s chosen people. This quality of direct perception, of keen insight into human personality, will manifest itself again. In an intrusive remark, a little later, the narrator will comment on his intuitive knowledge of human character [John 2:24-25]...It is with this same insightfulness that Jesus views Nathanael and demonstrates his capacity to look into human hearts. (Waetjen, <i>The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple: A Work in Two Editions</I>, 312-313)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.trumbower STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jeffrey A. Trumbower</a> (b. 1960) elaborates:
<blockquote>In John 1:48, Jesus’ knowledge of Nathanael is tied to Nathanael’s “whence” (πόθεν), and...the whence/whither of both Jesus and the disciples plays a vital role in the Fourth Gospel as a whole. Here, πόθεν is explained by reference to Jesus’ having seen Nathanael sitting under the fig tree, but this does not account for the fact that Jesus knows there is no deceit “in” Nathanael [John 1:47]. The elaboration of this theme must wait until John 2:23-25, followed by chapters 3 and 4. (Trumbower, <i>Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John</I>, 70)</blockquote>
Jesus is especially perceptive. Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) describes:
<blockquote>Again as in John 1:42, “Jesus shows that he is possessed of supernatural knowledge (Rudolf Schnackenburg [1914-2002] 1:316). He is the searcher of hearts (Alfred Plummer [1841-1926]). (Stallings, <i>The Gospel of John (Randall House Bible Commentary)</I>, 39)</blockquote>
This ability is featured prominently in the Fourth Gospel. <a href=http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/religion/faculty/anderson.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul N. Anderson</a> (b. 1956) bolsters:
<blockquote>Jesus is portrayed as <i>having supernatural knowledge</I>. He knows Nathanael from afar (John 1:48ff.); he knows what is in the hearts of humans (John 2:24ff.); the Samaritan woman experiences herself as being known by Jesus (John 4:39); and Jesus knows what will transpire beforehand (John 4:1, 6:64, 13:1, 3, 13). Nowhere in the canonical scriptures is Jesus’ <i>divinity</I> portrayed more graphically than in John. (Anderson, <i>The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6</I>, 266)</blockquote>
Jesus’ pronouncement to Nathanael marks the first this characteristic presents itself in John’s gospel (John 1:47). <a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> (b. 1946) remarks:
<blockquote>His words tell us who Nathanael is, or at least who he can become: “An Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” (John 1:47 RSV). This is the first demonstration of Jesus’ divine knowledge. As the incarnate Logos, he “needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone” (John 2:25). (Culpepper, <i>The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts)</I>, 125)</blockquote>
This feature will recur throughout the book. <a href=http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/religion/faculty/anderson.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul N. Anderson</a> (b. 1956) compiles:
<blockquote>The divine certainty and sway of Jesus are featured (John 1:47-51, 2:24-25, 4:17-19, 5:41-42, 6:64, 13:1-3): Jesus knows full well what he will do and what is going to happen to him (John 6:6, 13:1, 16:19, 30, 18:4, 19:28); his adversaries cannot arrest him unless his time has arrived (John 7:30, 8:20); and people experience themselves at being “known by the divine” in their encounters with Jesus (John 1:48, 4:19, 39, 5:6, 9:38, 10:4, 14, 27,20:16, 21:7). (Anderson, <i>The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John</I>, 27)</blockquote>
Some have assumed a supernatural component to Christ’s insight. Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002) comments:
<blockquote>It appears from the scene with Nathanael that here too Jesus is meant to be seen as the possessor of divine knowledge [John 1:47]. (Schnackenburg, <i>The Gospel according to St. John, Volume 1</I>, 311)</blockquote>
John F. O’Grady (b. 1939) studies:
<blockquote>Jesus reveals God and perceives the incipient faith in a man who bears an Old Testament name and engages in activity most characteristic of God’s people. The author actually uses a technical formula for revelation, identifying Nathanael as an “Israelite. There is no guile in him” (John 1:47). (O’Grady, <i>According to John: The Witness of the Beloved Disciple</I>, 22)</blockquote>
Anthony Tyrrell Hanson (1916-1991) classifies:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/fellows-directory/robert-t-fortna/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert T. Fortna</a> [b. 1930]...suggests that some of the apparently miraculous elements in the Gospel are the products not of John himself but of his hypothetical signs source. He writes: ‘Jesus’ unexplained knowledge of Nathanael (John 1:47ff.) and the woman at the well (John 4:16ff.) is quasi-miraculous and probably stems from the source...but these episodes have no standing as miracles in their own right’. Since we do not believe in the existence of a signs-source, we must accept these ‘quasi-miraculous’ elements as part of the original Gospel. They do however, impart an atmosphere to the Gospel in which the miraculous is to be expected. (Hanson, <i>The Prophetic Gospel: Study of John and the Old Testament</I>, 283)</blockquote>
Not all have seen a supernatural occurrence. John A. Sanford (1929-2005) rationalizes:
<blockquote>Jesus shows the same penetrating insight into Nathanael’s character that he showed into Simon’s [John 1:42,47]; this faculty in him can be ascribed to his psychological astuteness and intuition. But in the next verse the matter goes farther than that. Nathanael marvels that Jesus could know him so well, never having met him: “How do you know me?” he asks. The Greek word here translated “know” is the special term <i>ginōskō</I>, which refers to knowing something intimately through experience. Nathanael uses this word because he is so amazed that Jesus could know him so deeply in such a short time. (Sanford, <i>Mystical Christianity: A Psychological Commentary on the Gospel of John</I>, 30)</blockquote>
Jesus’ divine insight tips the scales in his favor (John 1:47-48). <a href=http://divinity.wfu.edu/faculty/faculty-listings/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gail R. O’Day</a> (b. 1954) and <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/hylen.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Susan Hylen</a> (1968) recognize:
<blockquote>Nathanael’s resistance to Jesus is overcome because of Jesus’ ability to recognize who Nathanael truly is (“an Israelite in whom there is no deceit,” John 1:47), an ironic counterpart to Nathanael’s inability to recognize who Jesus really is...This...is a theme that will recur in the Gospel: Jesus has insight that others do not have because of Jesus’ relationship with God (for example, John 6:6, 11:4, 13:1). Nathanael recognizes the source of Jesus’ insight and so hails Jesus as the Son of God (see John 1:18, 34). (O’Day and Hylen, <i>John (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 33)</blockquote>
Some have seen Old Testament allusions behind the phrase “an Israelite...in whom there is no deceit” (John 1:47 NASB). William Barclay (1907-1978) assumes:
<blockquote>That was a tribute that any devout Israelite would recognize. ‘Happy are those’, said the psalmist, ‘to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit’ (Psalm 32:2). ‘He had done no violence,’ said the prophet of the Servant of the Lord, ‘and there was no deceit in his mouth’ (Isaiah 53:9). (Barclay, <i>The Gospel of John, Volume One (New Daily Study Bible)</I>, 109)</blockquote>
Severino Pancaro documents:
<blockquote>Marie-Émile Boismard [1916-2004] suggests that John 1:47ff should be considered in the light of Isaiah 44:1-5. Nathanael would be called “Israel” because he is faithful to God, he serves no false gods...In keeping with the interpretation he gives to the passage, ἐν ὡ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν would mean that there is no falsehood or lie in Nathanael (Israel) in the religious sense of “invoking the names of the false gods” (cf. Zephaniah 3:13, etc.)...The construction of Boismard is suggestive. Its main weakness (and it is a serious one) is that there is little or nothing in the Johannine text to support it. (<i>The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John</I>, 303)</blockquote>
There is debate over the part of speech of the word “true”: adverb or adjective? Both are grammatically possible (John 1:47). Severino Pancaro scrutinizes:
<blockquote>The adverb, in attributive position, can be given adjectival force (Nathanael is a “true” Israelite, as opposed to “false” Israelites) or be left with its adverbial force (Nathanael is “truly” an Israelite, as opposed to those who are unworthy of the name) [John 1:47]. The difference is negligible. (<i>The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John</I>, 293)</blockquote>
C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) determines:
<blockquote>ἀληθως ’Ισραηλίτης...Nathanael is one who truly is an Israelite. ἀληθως always has this meaning in John (John 4:42, 6:14, 55, 7:26, 40, 8:31, 17:8)...We may suppose that the reference to δόλος simply expands ἀληθως: you are truly an Israelite, with no pretence, seeming, dissimulation. (Barrett, <i>The Gospel according to St. John</I>, 184-85)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andreas J. Köstenberger</a> (b. 1957) counters:
<blockquote>The rendering “true Israelite” (NIV) probably is incorrect [John 1:47]. Rather, Jesus says, “truly,” here is an Israelite in whom there is nothing false (literally, no “deceit,” δόλος, <i>dolos</I>; see Herman N. Ridderbos [1909-2007] 1997:90; <a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D.A. Carson</a> [b. 1946] 1991:160; C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] 1978:184-85; Adolf Schlatter [1852-1938] 1948:59). (Köstenberger, <i>John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 82)</blockquote>
Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) strengthens:
<blockquote>The adverb “truly,” “in truth,” goes with the entire statement and must not be taken, as so many interpreters do, as an adjective with “Israelite” (“Behold, a true Israelite”) [John 1:47]...So, e.g., Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976]: “one who is worthy of the name of Israel” (<i>The Gospel of John: A Commentary</I>, p. 104, n.4; cf. also C.K. Barrett [1917-2011], <i>The Gospel according to St. John</I>, p. 184). Such adjectival use of an adverb is very unusual, and if all the emphasis were laid on Nathanael being a true Israelite, then everything would be said, so that the relative clause that follows would be useless. (Ridderbos, <i>The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary</I>, 89)</blockquote>
R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) contemplates:
<blockquote>The adverb ἀληθως, “truly” “in truth or verity,” modifies the entire statement, “Behold, here is in truth an Israelite, in whom is no guile” [John 1:47]. Some connect the adverb with the noun, but then an adjective should have been used, “Behold, a true Israelite,” Then, too, the relative clause would merely define the adjective: true because without guile. This would connote that other Israelites were not true because they were full of guile, a contrast that is entirely out of place here where such Israelites are not thought of. Still less can we draw the adverb to the relative clause, “in whom truly is no guile,” which ignores the position of the word and removes the strong emphasis on “an Israelite.” This word of Jesus concerning Nathanael can be understood only in connection with the conversation of Philip and Nathanael [John 1:45-46]. (Lenski, <i>Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel 1-10</i>, 167)</blockquote>
<a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D.A. Carson</a> (b. 1946) agrees:
<blockquote><i>When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching</i>, he said in his hearing, ‘Truly, an Israelite in whom there is no guile!’ not, as in NIV, ‘Here is a true Israelite...’ [John 1:47]. The adjective ‘true’ (<i>alēthinos</I>) is an important word for John, but he does not use it here...Instead he uses the word ‘truly’ (<i>alēthōs</I>, consistently deployed in the Fourth Gospel as an adverb (John 4:42, 6:14, 55 [variant reading], John 7:26, 40, 8:31, 17:8). Jesus is not saying that Nathanael is a ‘true Israelite’ in terms reminiscent of Paul’s discussion of the new Israel (Romans 2:28-29, 9:6). After all, at this point Nathanael is not a convert in any sense; and if he became a disciple of Jesus after their next exchange, he still had to pass through a lengthy period characterized by considerable misunderstanding. (Carson, <i>The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 160)</blockquote>
The vocabulary underscores the verse’s emphasis on truth (John 1:47). Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) coheres:
<blockquote>The notion of genuineness, which is introduced by the adverb ἀληθως, is reinforced by the negative explanation, “in whom there is no deceit” (ὡ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν) [John 1:47]. (Hera, <i>Christology and Discipleship in John 17</I>, 56)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/religious_studies/pages/gundry.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) illumines:
<blockquote>Jacob was known for his deceit (Genesis 27:35). So Jesus highlights a contrast in the absence of deceit from Nathaniel. This absence agrees with the emphasis on truth in this very verse [John 1:47] (note the opposition between “truly” and “deceit” and throughout John, as in John 3:21: “But the one who is doing the <i>truth</I> comes to the light.” Nathaniel is just such a person; so he comes to the light. (Gundry, <i>Commentary on John</i>)</blockquote>
The designation Israelite is striking (John 1:47). Leon Morris (1914-2006) briefs:
<blockquote>“Israelite” is used here only in this Gospel [John 1:47], though “Jew” (especially in the plural) is common...It means here the true son of Israel (cf. Romans 2:29). The most frequent use of the term in the New Testament is an address in the speeches in Acts [Acts 2:22, 3:12, 5:35, 13:16, 21:18]. (Morris, <i>The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 145)</blockquote>
John McHugh (1927-2006) surveys:
<blockquote>’Ισραηλίτης occurs nine times in the New Testament: five times in Acts, as a formal address to assembled Jews (Acts 2:22, 3:12, 5:35, 13:16, 21:28); three times in Paul, when he is stressing his racial and religious credentials (Romans 9:4, 11:1; II Corinthians 11:22); and here (only) in the gospels. ἀληθως ’Ισραηλίτης proclaims the genuineness of Nathanael’s devotion to the God of Israel. The use of the adverb with a noun to mean <i>real, genuine</I>, is both classical and common, and recurs in John 8:31. Here, as elsewhere in John, the Greek meaning of ‘genuine’ is combined with the Hebraic meaning of ‘being faithful to one’s word’ (see E.A. Abbott [1838-1926], 1727g). (McHugh, <i>John 1-4 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 161)</blockquote>
Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) denotes:
<blockquote>Such pregnant use of “Israel(-ite)” occurs nowhere else in the Gospel (Friedrich Büchsel [1883-1945], <I>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</I> III, 386: “We do not detect in John any extension of the name to the new people of God. The true Israelite is the man who is bound to the Law, and therewith to God”). See <a href=http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/theology/staff/profiles/academic-staff/john-painter>John Painter</a> [b. 1935], “Christ and the Church in John 1:45-51,” in <i>L’Évangile de Jean</I>, p. 360. (Ridderbos, <i>The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary</I>, 89)</blockquote>
<a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D.A. Carson</a> (b. 1946) presumes:
<blockquote>That Jesus refers to him as an ‘Israelite’ is not surprising; Palestinian Jews commonly referred to one another that way (Karl Georg Kuhn [1906-1976], <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</I> 3.359ff.). (Carson, <i>The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 160)</blockquote>
It has long been assumed that the designation “Israelite” refers to more than Nathanael’s genealogical lineage (John 1:47). Thomas Whitelaw (1840-1917) writes:
<blockquote>Nathanael [is]...not merely a descendant of Israel according to the flesh, but one whose inner character corresponds to the ideal conception of the name (August Tholuck [1799-1877, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer [1800-1873], Frédéric Louis Godet [1812-1900], and others), and therefore a true branch or member of the people of God (Wilhelm Hengstenberg [1802-1869]). (Whitelaw, <i>Commentary on John</I>, 43)</blockquote>
The term “Israel” is highly favorable in the Fourth Gospel. <a href=http://www.trinitysem.edu/Faculty/faculty_lk.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lars Kierspel</a> (b. 1972) gauges:
<blockquote>Jesus praises Nathanael as “a true Israelite” (John 1:47) and addresses Nicodemus as a “teacher of Israel” (John 3:10), thus valuing “Israel” as a name of honor an respect. (Kierspel, <i>The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context</I>, 64)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-dennis/4a/a55/985 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John A. Dennis</a> (b. 1962) resolves:
<blockquote>Jesus’ messianic ministry to Israel is...emphasized in the account concerning who represents the ideal Israelite, the one who recognizes Jesus as Israel’s king (John 1:47, 49). Nathanael is thus a proleptic fulfillment of the mission statement in John 1:31. It is significant that the term <i>Ioudaios</I> is not used for Nathanael. Rather, “Israelite” is employed because it signifies, throughout the Old Testament, the covenant people of YHWH. Therefore, Jesus sets out from the beginning of his ministry to restore <i>Israel</I>, meaning that the object of Jesus’ ministry is Israelites.(Dennis, <i>Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47-52</I>, 296-97)</blockquote>
The incorporation of the term “Israelite” is an example John’s appealing to the past to reflect on his narrative’s present (John 1:47). <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/tat-siong-benny-liew/1b/719/a27 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tat-siong Benny Liew</a> (b. 1961) reminds:
<blockquote>We must not lose sight of...how consistently John has Jesus invoke an older authority figure to circumvent his opponents...By resorting to the strategic argument of origins, Jesus is able to deflect criticism about his disregard for the law...In other words, the ‘grandfather complex’—in terms of Jesus’ pre-existence with/as God (John 1:1-4, 17-18), and/or Jesus’ obedience to God—allows John to argue that his community, though late in coming, is ‘consistent with the law but not derived from the law’...The power of this construction lies in its flexibility to invoke and revoke tradition, because it constructs an ‘antitype, the redemptive fulfillment of types, of original ancestors’. It allows John to do so with Moses (John 5:45-47, 6:30-33, 49-51, 58, 10:8), or to consider Nathanael the ‘true Israelite’ who has no deceit over against the first Israelite (Jacob) who was deceitful (John 1:47). (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/musa-w-dube-botswana/37/884/b69 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Musa W. Dube</a> [b. 1964] and <a href=http://fac-staff.seattleu.edu/staleyj/web/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jeffrey L. Staley</a> [b. 1951], “Ambiguous Admittance: Consent and Descent in John’s Community of ‘Upward’ Mobility”, <i>John and Postcolonialism: Travel, Space, and Power</I>, 211-212)</blockquote>
Many have read the classification “Israelite” in contrast with the more common identifier “Jew” (John 1:47). Severino Pancaro measures:
<blockquote>John uses ’Ισραήλ and ’Ισραηλίτης very sparingly. ’Ισραήλ is used four times (John 1:39, 49, 3:10, 12:13), ’Ισραηλίτης once (John 1:47). The numerical difference stands out; ’Ιουδαιος is used some 70 times! The terms are obviously not equivalent. (<i>The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John</I>, 296)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/d-moody-smith STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D. Moody Smith</a> (b. 1931) compares:
<blockquote>The “Jews” in John’s view are not simply to be equated with Israel. Israel plays a positive role, although the Jews do not. John came baptizing in order to manifest Jesus to Israel (John 1:31). There are obviously people in Israel who accept and believe in Jesus, namely, his disciples, among whom is Nathanael, “truly an Israelite in whom there is no guile” (John 1:47; cf. John 21:2). Moreover, Nicodemus, ignorant though he may seem (John 3:1-21), is nevertheless a teacher of Israel (John 3:10) who returns to defend Jesus (John 7:50-52) and finally to help bury him (John 19:13). Being a teacher of Israel is a good thing. (Smith, <i>The Theology of the Gospel of John</I>, 89)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jerome H. Neyrey</a> (b. 1940) figures:
<blockquote>The “Judeans” are under considerable censure from the point of view of John’s Gospel, and yet “Israel” is a favorable term (see John 1:31, 3:10, 12:13). John seems to reflect the same favorable use of “Israel” as found in Romans 9:4, 11:1, II Corinthians 11:22; Galatians 6:16 (see 1QS 9:6); see Severino Pancaro, “The Relationship of the Church to Israel in the Gospel of St. John,” <a href=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=NTS STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><i>New Testament Studies</I></a> 21 (1974-75):396-405, especially pp. 398-401; <a href=http://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/fellows-directory/robert-t-fortna/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert T. Fortna</a> [b. 1930], “The Theological Use of Locale in the Fourth Gospel,” <i>Gospel Studies in Honor of <a href=http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/109399_12754_ENG_HTM.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sherman Elbridge Johnson</a> [1908-1993]</i> (editors Massey H. Shepherd, Jr. [1913-1990] and <a href=http://www.wellesley.edu/religion/faculty/hobbs STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Edward C. Hobbs</a> [b. 1926], <a href=http://www.anglicantheologicalreview.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><i>Anglican Theological Review</I></a> supplementary series 3; 1974) 89-95. A comparable debate occurs in John 8 over who are the authentic offspring of Abraham — Christians or (unbelieving) Judeans [John 8:31-59]; see <a href=http://united.edu/portfolio-item/thomas-dozeman/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Thomas B. Dozeman</a> [b. 1952], “<i>Sperma Abraham</I> in John 8 and Related Literature: Cosmology and Judgement,” <a href=http://catholicbiblical.org/publications/cbq><i>Catholic Biblical Quarterly</I></a> 42 (1980):342-358). (Neyrey, “‘Are You Greater than Our Father Jacob’: Jesus and Jacob in John 1:51 and John 4:4-26”, <i>The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective</I>, 89)</blockquote>
The term “Jew” in John’s gospel has elicited much discussion. Severino Pancaro construes:
<blockquote>It has often been remarked that ’Ιουδαιος in John is an equivocal term. It is found as a designation for: 1) the opponents of Jesus; 2) the “common” people or “crowd” (ὁ ὄχλος); 3) the Jewish people as opposed to the Gentiles; 4) the contemporaries of Jesus with their customs and practices; 5) Judeans. (<i>The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John</I>, 293)</blockquote>
<a href=http://arts.uottawa.ca/cla-srs/en/people/reinhartz-adele STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Adele Reinhartz</a> (b. 1953) bounds:
<blockquote>The fact that the same word occurs numerous times and in a variety of contexts tends, in my view to blur the fine distinctions and nuances implied by these contexts and to generalize the meaning to its broadest possible referent, that is, the Jews as a nation defined by a set of religious beliefs, cultic and liturgical practices and a sense of peoplehood. As <a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> [b. 1946] notes, “Even if the Greek term οἱ ’Ιουδαιοι once denoted Judeans or Jewish authorities, the Gospel of John generalized and stereotyped those who rejected Jesus by its use of this term and elevated the bitterness and hostility of the polemic to a new level.” Given the ubiquity of the term, ’Ιουδαιος, however, it is curious that while it is applied to Jesus (John 4:9), it is never used of a figure who is a believer; this despite the fact that almost all the followers of and believers in Jesus within the Gospel narrative, with the exception of the Samaritan woman [John 4:4-26, 28-30, 39-42], her compatriots [John 4:39-42], and, perhaps, the officer of John 4 [John 4:46-54], are Jewish in the national and ethnic sense. This is true of the primary spokespersons for faith, namely, the first disciples [John 1:35-51], the man born blind [John 9:1-34], the Bethany siblings [John 11:1-46, 12:1-11], Mary Magdalene [John 19:25, 20:1-18], and the beloved disciple [John 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21]. The most explicit example is Nathanael, who is praised by Jesus not as a “true Jew” but as a “true Israelite” in whom there is no guile or deceit (John 1:47)—in contrast, perhaps, to the Jews themselves. Some of them, such as the Bethany siblings, the man born blind, and possibly the beloved disciple, and even Judaean in the narrower sense yet are not referred to as ’Ιουδαιοι. (<a href=https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/researchers/7/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Reimund Bieringer</a> [b. 1957], <a href=http://www.didierpollefeyt.be/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Didier Pollefeyt</a> [b. 1965] and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville [b. 1972], “‘Jews’ and Jews in the Fourth Gospel”, <i>Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel</I>, 220-21)</blockquote>
Many contend that “Jew” carries a pejorative tone in the Fourth Gospel. <a href=http://www.trinitysem.edu/Faculty/faculty_lk.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lars Kierspel</a> (b. 1972) records:
<blockquote>Severino Pancaro insists that...“Jesus is not the King of the Jews, he is the King of Israel.” While ’Ιουδαιι stands here for the “religious-national community” and the title for a “national-political Messiah,” ’Ισραήλ is a honorific title for the theocratic people which refers in the Gospel (in John 1:31, 49, 3:10, 12:13) to Jewish Christians who are “born again of water and spirit” and the “particularly instructive” occurrence in connection with Nathanael, the “genuine Israelite” (John 1:47) shows. (Kierspel, <i>The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context</I>, 71)</blockquote>
Robert Kysar (1934-2013) consents:
<blockquote>While Jesus stresses the continuity between himself and his message and Hebrew Scriptures (John 5:39, 6:45, 8:56, 10:34), Judaism is depicted as a faulty understanding of those scriptures. The “true Israelite in whom is no guile” is one who goes on to become Jesus’ disciple (John 1:47). (Kysar, <i>Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel</I>, 150)</blockquote>
Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) expatiates:
<blockquote>If Nathanael represents the true Israelite [John 1:47], he stands in sharp contrast to “the Jews.” They search the Scriptures and yet refuse to come to Jesus (John 5:39-40). Their father is the devil in whom there is no truth (John 8:44). They ask the question “Who are you?” (John 8:25), but do not understand what Jesus says (John 8:43). In contrast, Nathanael who had searched the Scriptures under the fig tree [John 1:48] came to Jesus [John 1:46]. He is the one in whom there is no guile [John 1:47]. Like the other disciples, whom he represents in so far as he is the true Israelite, Nathanael [sic] has no need to ask “Who are you?” (cf. John 8:25). He will come to know who Jesus is. Because Jesus has called Nathanael the true Israelite [John 1:47], with a call which constitutes him in this very capacity. Nathanael receives the answer to the unasked “Who are you?” question. Jesus is the Son of Man (John 1:51). The answer is contained in a verse which has been added to the Nathanael pericope at a late stage in the development of the Gospel tradition. Yet it is important, not only by reason of the role which the Son of Man title plays in the Fourth Gospel [John 1:51, 3:13, 14, 5:27,6:27, 53, 62, 8:28, 9:35, 12:23,34, 13:31], but also because the addition of the verse of the earlier tradition makes of Nathanael, the true Israelite, the first hearer of a formula of self-revelation coming from the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel, who is the self-revealing son of God and Son of Man. What the true and believing Israelite perceives is the abiding and permanent union of the earthly Son of Man with the heavenly world. (Collins, <i>These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel</i>, 13-14)</blockquote>
<a href=http://luc.edu/theology/facultystaff/vonwahldeurban.shtml STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Urban C. Von Wahlde</a> (b. 1941) rejects:
<blockquote>Some commentators consider the designation [“Israelite”] to be a mark of approbation and “Jew” one of reproach. This is ambiguous at best. The strongest evidence for this would be the current instance [John 1:47], but the approbation here comes more from the use o the term “true” or in the description of Nathanael as having “no guile.” Moreover, for Nathanael, who plays no major role in the Gospel, to be singled out with such a designation seems unlikely. (Von Wahlde, <i>The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 2: The Gospel of John (Eerdmans Critical Commentary)</I>, 64)</blockquote>
Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) acquaints:
<blockquote>The Johannine Jesus bestows a high encomium on Nathanael by calling him a genuine Israelite [John 1:47]. To explain the alienation from Judaism...Colin J.A. Hickling [1931-2007] and others would appeal to stages in the development of Johannine community history: an earlier period emphasizing that Jesus fits into the expectations of Israel, and a later period where claims are made for Jesus that are hard to reconcile with a Jewish outlook. Be that as it may, the final Gospel gives a picture both of community and discontinuity. (Brown, <i>An Introduction to the Gospel of John</i>, 161)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/religion/faculty/anderson.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul N. Anderson</a> (b. 1956) expounds:
<blockquote>The Johannine presentation of “the Jews” must be approached from the perspective of the evolving history of the Johannine situation. While the Evangelist and his subject (Jesus) are clearly Jewish in the narrative, a distancing from Judaism can be observed between affirming an Israelite in whom there is nothing false (John 1:47) and salvation being “of the Jews” (John 4:22), and referring to Jewish approaches to Scripture as “your law” (Jesus to the Jerusalem leaders, John 8:17, 10:34—the same way Pilate refers to the Jews in John 18:31) and seeing Jesus’ words as a fulfillment of “their law” (John 15:25). Two main sets of a dialogues with Jewish leaders are here implied: the first involving North-South dialectical tensions with religious leaders of Jerusalem (taking <i>Ioudaioi</I> to mean “Judeans”), and the second involving Jewish-Christian debates within a Diaspora setting over whether Jesus could be regarded as the Messiah/Christ. (Anderson, <i>The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John</I>, 161)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.trumbower STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jeffrey A. Trumbower</a> (b. 1960) illuminates:
<blockquote>One difference between Nazi ideology and that of the Gospel of John is that Jews in John are not barred from having an origin “from God” by virtue of their ethnic identity; Nathanael [John 1:45-51] and Jesus are two obvious examples. (Trumbower, <i>Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John</I>, 14)</blockquote>
Many have seen significance in Nathanael’s Galilean origins, viewing his geographic origins as further indictment against “the Jews” (John 21:2). <a href=http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/religion/faculty/anderson.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul N. Anderson</a> (b. 1956) asserts:
<blockquote>Ironically, while the Judeans reject the northern prophet, Nathanael is described as an Israelite in whom there is nothing false [John 1:47]—in contrast to the southern leaders, the northerner gets it right (John 1:45-50). (<a href=http://www.ccuniversity.edu/graduate/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tom Thatcher</a> [b. 1967] and <a href=http://users.drew.edu/smoore/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen D. Moore</a> [b. 1954], “From One Dialogue to Another: Johannine History on the Other Side of Literary Criticism”, <i>Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature</i>, 104)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-dennis/4a/a55/985 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John A. Dennis</a> (b. 1962) buttresses:
<blockquote>It is telling that directly after the narrative of John’s baptism and John’s declaration of Jesus’ identity and mission (John 1:29-34), the first faithful responders to Jesus as the Messiah of and to Israel are his disciples who hail not from Judea but from Galilee (John 1:37-44). Furthermore, it is Nathanael, a Galilean, who represents the true <i>Israelite</I> (cf. John 1:47) and as such gives the proper response to the true Messiah and King of Israel (John 1:49)...Similarly, <a href=http://pantheon.yale.edu/~wmeeks/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Wayne A. Meeks</a> [b. 1932], “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel,” 165, states: “Nathanael, who is Galilean and not a ‘Jew,’ is nevertheless the ‘real Israelite’ [John 1:47]; who recognizes Israel’s king (John 1:49).” (Dennis, <i>Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47-52</I>, 41-42)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bu.edu/sthlibrary/archives/collections/james-d-purvis-collection-of-samaritana/STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James D. Purvis</a> (b. 1932) relates:
<blockquote>There seems...to have been a conscious attempt in the Fourth Gospel to relate the Galileans to the Samaritans rather than the Judaeans, to whom one might expect them to have been related due to a common faith (“Jewish” rather than “Samaritan”). To John, the Galilean Jews were much closer to the non-Jewish Samaritans than to their Jewish brethren in Jerusalem, as judged in reference to the theme of acceptance/rejection. This may account for the use of the term “Israelite” rather than “Jew” in Jesus’s statement concerning Nathanael (“an Israelite, indeed, in whom is no guile,” John 1:47). “Israelite” was the term used by Samaritans to distinguish themselves from Jews. John’s use of the term for a Galilean suggests that he also wished to make a distinction. Galilean Jews such as Nathanael were not to be confused with Judaean Jews such as Nathaniel were not to be confused with Judean Jews such as those who vilified and rejected Jesus. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-orton/69/918/173 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Orton</a>, “The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans”, <i>The Composition of John’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum</I>, 158)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-dennis/4a/a55/985 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John A. Dennis</a> (b. 1962) comprehends:
<blockquote>One of the unique features of the Fourth Gospel is that those who respond positively to Jesus originate from the three regions of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, nevertheless, there is a clear emphasis on Galilee (or the region of Galilee) and Samaria as “the places of acceptance and discipleship.” (Dennis, <i>Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47-52</I>, 297)</blockquote>
The epithet bestowed upon Nathanael (John 1:47) reminds the reader of the Jewish roots of the early Christian movement. <a href=http://www.cts.edu/faculty/cts-faculty.aspx?StaffId=5 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ronald J. Allen</a> (b. 1949) and Clark M. Williamson (b. 1935) contend:
<blockquote>Jesus’ disciples’ faith in him is shaped by their Jewish understandings, views that Jesus constantly corrects, as this passage illustrates [John 1:43-51]. This will be a major theme of John—misunderstanding on the part of Jesus’ disciples and, even more, of Jews who are not Jesus’ disciples. John’s Jesus is shaped entirely by John’s Christology. (Allen and Williamson, <i>Preaching the Gospels Without Blaming the Jews: A Lectionary Commentary</I>, 97)</blockquote>
Some have even taken the use of the term “Israelite” as evidence of a Jewish Christian church (John 1:47). <a href=http://www.trinitysem.edu/Faculty/faculty_lk.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lars Kierspel</a> (b. 1972) accounts:
<blockquote>From a two-level perspective, E.L. Allen [1863-1961] finds especially in Nathanael (John 1:44-51) and in the blind man who was healed (John 9:1-34) reflections of a “Jewish Christian Church, still faithful to the Law but acknowledging Jesus as Messiah.” Allen, “The Jewish Christian Church in the Fourth Gospel,” 92. (Kierspel, <i>The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context</I>, 27)</blockquote>
This title “Israelite” invites a comparison (John 1:47). <a href=http://www.goshen.edu/joannab/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jo-Ann A. Brant</a> (b. 1956) concedes:
<blockquote>The identification of Nathanael as a true Israelite [John 1:47] raises the question With whom is he being compared? Isaac accuses Jacob, later renamed Israel, of stealing Esau’s birthright with such a deception (<i>dolou</I>; Genesis 27:35 Septuagint). In the context of the narrative, Jesus may implicitly chastise the disciples. The Baptist has said that his mission is to make Jesus manifest to Israel (John 1:31); therefore Nathanael seems to represent the fulfilment of this objective by virtue of the fact that, unlike the Jerusalem delegation or the first disciples, he has not sought a pretext to determine the Baptist’s or Jesus’s true identity. (Brant, <i>John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</I>, 53)</blockquote>
The vast majority of interpreters have seen an allusion to the patriarch Jacob who took the name Israel (Genesis 32:8, 35:10). <a href=http://marycoloe.org.au/homepage/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mary L. Coloe</a> (b. 1949) understands:
<blockquote>Nathanael is called an Israelite without guile [John 1:47], recalling that Jacob was noted for his “guile” (Genesis 32:28) and is promised a vision of angels ascending and descending [John 1:51], such as the vision Jacob saw at Bethel [Genesis 28:10-17]. Without actually naming the reference to Jacob’s story...the parallels are made. “The evangelist expected readers to catch the allusion to the Jacob story in order to make sense of the narrative.” (Coloe, <i>Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality</I>, 150)</blockquote>
This observation is ancient. Anthony Tyrrell Hanson (1916-1991) chronicles:
<blockquote>Origen [184-253] says that Nathanael knew Jesus first as man (the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph) but when he actually met him Nathanael became Jacob, the man who had seen God – and, we must assume, who knew he had seen God. (Hanson, <i>The Prophetic Gospel: Study of John and the Old Testament</I>, 350)</blockquote>
“Guile” is the specific point of comparison (John 1:47). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) divulges:
<blockquote>To Nathanael’s surprise, Jesus greeted him on his approach as if he knew him quite well [John 1:47]. And what an encomium Jesus gave him! The point of the encomium is best understood from the conversation which follows, with its reference to the narrative of Jacob’s ladder [Genesis 28:10-17]. ‘Here is a true son of Israel,’ Jesus’ words may be paraphrased ‘one who is all Israel and no Jacob.’ Whatever the etymology of the name Jacob may be, it was traditionally associated with deceit. When Isaac said to Esau, ‘Your brother came with deceit (Septuagint <i>dolos</I>, the word used here by John), and he has taken away your blessing’, Esau replied, ‘Is he not rightly named Jacob (Hebrew <i>ya‘âqōb</I>? For he has supplanted me (<i>ya‘aqebēnî</I> these two times (Genesis 27:35ff.). (Bruce, <i>The Gospel of John</I>, 60)</blockquote>
John McHugh (1927-2006) adds:
<blockquote>The absence of δόλος, that is, of any deceitfulness, dishonesty or insincerity is a mark of one who is righteous before God: see Psalms 24:4, 32:2, 34:13, 139:4. Jacob has signally lacked this quality: ‘your brother came with guile and took away your blessing’ (ἐλθὼν ὁ ἀδελφός σου μετὰ δόλου ἔλαβεν τὴν εὐλογίαν σου, Genesis 27:35). Not so Nathanael. (McHugh, <i>John 1-4 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 161)</blockquote>
Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) settles:
<blockquote>Nathanael is a true Israelite in whom there is none of the spirit of Jacob (the deceiver, the one full of guile [John 1:47]. The contrast is not between two stages of Nathanael’s life (as it was with Simon), but between the two stages of the patriarch Jacob’s life and his two names. (Stallings, <i>The Gospel of John (Randall House Bible Commentary)</I>, 39)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Andreas J. Köstenberger</a> (b. 1957) contrasts:
<blockquote>In this, Nathanael differs from the original “Israel” (i.e. Jacob)...who was deceitful (δόλος, cf. Genesis 27:35-36 Septuagint; see <a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D.A. Carson</a> [b. 1946] 1991:161; Leon Morris [1914-2006] 1995:145; <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/B/Gary-Burge STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary M. Burge</a> [b. 1952] 2000:78). Nathanael was free from such duplicity of heart (cf. Psalm 32:2) and thus prepared to consider whether the claims regarding Jesus were true or not. It is as if Jesus was saying, “Look, Israel without a trace of Jacob left in him!” (L. Paul Trudinger [b. 1930] 1982:117). This attitude stood in sharp contrast not only with Jacob of old, but also the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matthew 26:4; Mark 14:1: δόλος), and Nathanael becomes “a symbol of [true] Israel coming to God” (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1966: 82; cf. Thomas L. Brodie [b. 1940] 1993:170). Nevertheless, this does not yet make him a “true Israelite” (he cannot be described as an actual convert at this point), but rather a “certain kind of Israelite, an Israelite in whom there is no guile” (Carson 1991:160). (Köstenberger, <i>John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 82)</blockquote>
<a href=http://webapps.roanoke.edu/faculty/display.cfm?username=berenson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean</a> (b. 1963) deliberates:
<blockquote>Since the entirety of John 1:51 and the key conclusion to John 1:47 belong to the level of Johannine redaction, this recurring emphasis on Jacob must reflect the design and theological viewpoint of the fourth evangelist and not his source. In John 1:47 Jesus responds to the initially skeptical Nathanael with a surprisingly optimistic declaration about Nathanael’s character: ‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!’ [John 1:47] ‘Guile’ (δόλος) is the quintessential description of the wily trickster of Genesis: Isaac declares to Esau, who arrived just a bit too late “Your brother came deceitfully [μετὰ δόλου]’ and he has taken away your blessing’ (Septuagint Genesis 27:35). The proximity in John 1:47 of this apt description of Jacob to the designation ‘Israelite’ makes the reference to Jacob clear. Nathanael is a true Israelite, a true member of God’s elect people, whose character has not been tainted by the biblical Jacob’s tricksterism. Nathaniel symbolizes Jesus’ followers as distinct from his enemies who in John are labeled ‘the Jews’. The implication of this initial critique of Jacob is that ‘the Jews’ are Jacob’s true descendants, that is, those who have followed his duplicitous ways and continue to rebel against God. (<a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> [b. 1956] with <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianneblickenstaff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Blickenstaff</a> [b. 1959], “The Divine Trickster: A Tale of Two Weddings in John”, <i>A Feminist Companion to John, Volume 1</I>, 57)</blockquote>
<a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D.A. Carson</a> (b. 1946) unfolds:
<blockquote>The encomium achieves extra depth in the light of the explicit reference to the Jacob story in the following verses [John 1:47-51]. Doubtless Esau despised his birthright, but in Isaac’s view that did not make Jacob innocent. Isaac informs Esau, ‘Your brother came deceitfully (Septuagint ‘with deceit [<i>dolos</I>]’) and took your blessing’, to which Esau replies, ‘Isn’t he rightly named Jacob (Hebrew <i>ya‘aqōb</I>)? He has deceived me (<i>ya‘aqebēnî</I> these two times’ (Genesis 27:35-36). But Jacob came to be called Israel, after receiving a vision of God that transformed his character (Genesis 28:10ff., 32:24-30). Nathanael, then was an Israelite without deceit, an ‘Israel’ and not a ‘Jacob’ (<i>cf.</I> <a href=http://archives.lambethpalacelibrary.org.uk/calmview/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=w.temple STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William Temple</a> [1881-1944], p. 30). He was a man worthy of the blessing pronounced in Psalm 32:2: ‘Blessed is the man...in whose spirit is no deceit.’ Since Jesus is about to tell him of greater visions that will be his (John 1:50-51), there may also be an allusion to the popular etymology that related ‘Israel’ is <i>’iš rō’eh ’ēl</I>, ‘the man who sees God’(<i>cf.</I> Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], <I>Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis</I> iii.186). (Carson, <i>The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 160-61)</blockquote>
Regarding the potential linguistic connection to the name “Israel” (John 1:47), Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) reckons:
<blockquote>The call of Nathanael (a disciple known only to John) involves an interesting play on words. He is a true Israelite, worthy of the name of Israel (by popular etymology “a man who sees God”), and is told he shall see greater things. As the Jacob or Israel of the Old Testament saw the glory of God in the vision of the ladder, so the Israel of the New Testament will see the glory of the Son of Man at the miracle of Cana (Brown, <i>The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary</I>, 27)</blockquote>
C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) considers:
<blockquote>It may be intentional that the word ’Ισραηλίτης is used in this passage, though, as Adolf Schlatter [1852-1938] notes (59), John, unlike Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], gives no etymological interpretation of the name Israel. Yet Philo’s interpretation of Israel is ὁρων τὸν θεόν (e.g., <i>De Mutatione Nominum</I>, 81), and in the present passage it is promised that Nathanael shall see heavenly sights (John 1:50ff.) (Barrett, <i>The Gospel According to St. John</I>, 184-85)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ntnu.no/pm/02.99/borgen.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Peder Borgen</a> (b. 1928) reveals:
<blockquote>Although there is no explicit etymological interpretation of the word Israel (“he who sees God”) in John, the idea of Israel is tied together with the idea of vision in the interpretation of Jacob’s vision, John 1:47-51. Nathanael, the true Israelite [John 1:47] is to see what his ancestor, Jacob/Israel saw [Genesis 28:10-17]. (Borgen, <i>The Gospel of John: More Light from Philo [20 BCE-50 CE] , Paul and Archaeology: The Scriptures, Tradition, Exposition, Settings, Meaning</I>, 175)</blockquote>
F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) substantiates:
<blockquote>In spite of Nazareth’s unenviable notoriety [John 1:46], Nathanael’s transparent generosity of heart made him willing to come and see this Nazarene whom Philip declared to be the one foretold in the law and the prophets. Jacob, for all the over-reaching deceit associated with his name, received a vision of God which changed his character, and was given the new name Israel to mark the change (Genesis 28:10ff, 32:24-28). While Israel is actually derived from the Hebrew verb <i>śārāh</I> (‘strive’), there was current in the first century (as we may see from Philo of Alexandria [20 BCE-50 CE] a popular etymology which explained...the name by the Hebrew phrase <i>’ish-rō’eh-’ēl</I> (‘the man who sees God’); and there may be some allusion to this etymology here. For Nathanael, this typical member of the true believing Israel, receives a promise that he and his companions will experience such a vision as was granted to Jacob. (Bruce, <i>The Gospel of John</I>, 60-61)</blockquote>
The innuendo pertaining to Jacob has led to speculation that this is the focus of Nathanael’s attention while he is “under the fig tree” (John 1:48 NASB). <a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/kgangel/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth O. Gangel</a> (1935-2009) conjectures:
<blockquote>The phrase <b>under the fig tree</b> was used in rabbinical literature to describe meditation on the law [John 1:48]. Nathanael had apparently been reading Genesis 28:10-17. Jesus contrasted Jacob’s guile with Nathanael’s integrity. (Gangel, <i>John (Holman New Testament Commentary)</I>, 18)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.thescriptdoctor.org.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mark W.G. Stibbe</a> (1960) assents:
<blockquote>Jacob, son of Isaac (who was in turn son of Abraham) became known as “Israel” [Genesis 32:8, 35:10]. He is perhaps best known for two things: for being the man who tricked and deceived his father to give him his brother’s inheritance [Genesis 27:1-46], and for being the man who had a dream about a ladder going up to heaven while he was asleep in a cave [Genesiv 28:10-17]. My guess is that Nathanael was a man who loved the story of Jacob. Jesus knows this because he is operating in the gift of prophecy. When he meets Nathanael Jesus tells him that he is a true Israelite because unlike Jacob there is no trickery or guile in him. Later on, in John 1:51, he will tell Nathanael that he too will see a ladder to heaven, just like Jacob did. (Stibbe, <i>Every Day with the Father: 366 Devotional Readings from John's Gospel</I>, 18)</blockquote>
Perhaps more significant than the moniker “Israelite” is the trait which Nathanael is said to lack (John 1:47). The disciple is without “deceit” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV), lacks “guile” (ASV, KJV, RSV), is not “deceitful” (CEV), is “a man of complete integrity” (NLT) or there has “not a false bone in his body” (MSG).
<p><a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D.A. Carson</a> (b. 1946) resolves:
<blockquote>Jesus’ point is not that Nathanael is an Israelite, ‘true’ or otherwise, but that Nathanael is a certain kind of Israelite, an Israelite in whom in whom there is no guile, no deceit (<i>dolos</I>; <i>cf.</I> <a href=http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/theology/staff/profiles/academic-staff/john-painter STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Painter</a> [b. 1935], in <I>L’Évangile de Jean: Sources, Rédaction, Théologie</I>, pp. 359-62) [John 1:47]. Nathanael may have been blunt in his criticism of Nazareth, but he was an Israelite without duplicitous motives who was willing to examine for himself the claims being made about Jesus. (Carson, <i>The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 160)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/B/Gary-Burge STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary M. Burge</a> (b. 1952) investigates:
<blockquote>Jesus describes Nathanael as “a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false [<i>dolos</I>: no guile, RSV; no deceit, NRSV]” [John 1:47]. This word occurs eleven times in the New Testament and conveys the meaning of trickery and cunning...Jesus sees in Nathanael a good man, an honest man. (Burge, <i>John (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 78)</blockquote>
Leon Morris (1914-2006) supplements:
<blockquote>As Nathanael approached, Jesus spoke of him as “a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false” [John 1:47]; <i>NRSV</I> has “no deceit!” This last word is used in earlier Greek writers for the “bait” used in catching fish. It comes to signify “<i>any cunning contrivance for deceiving</I> or <i>catching</I>, as the net in which Hephaestus catches Ares...the Trojan horse...Ixion’s bride...the robe of Penelope.” It is used in the Bible of Jacob before his change of heart (Genesis 27:35), which is the point of <a href=http://archives.lambethpalacelibrary.org.uk/calmview/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=w.temple STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William Temple</a> [1881-1944]’s translation, “an Israelite in whom there is no Jacob!” (<a href=http://www.gcampbellmorgan.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">G. Campbell Morgan</a> [1863-1945] also gives this as the sense of the verse.) Jesus salutes Nathanael as a straightforward person. (Morris, <i>The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 145)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.goshen.edu/joannab/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jo-Ann A. Brant</a> (b. 1956) augments:
<blockquote><b>When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he</b> [immediately] <b>says concerning him, “Look a true Israelite in whom there is no guile</b> [<i>dolos</I>]” (John 1:47). Homer [800-701 BCE] uses the word <i>dolos</I> to denote traps like the Trojan horse (<i>Iliad</I> 6.187-89; <I>Odyssey</I> 8.494) and Penelope’s robe (<i>Odyssey</I> 19.137). (Brant, <i>John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</I>, 53)</blockquote>
J. Ramsey Michaels (b. 1931) assumes:
<blockquote>Jesus is not so much praising Nathanael’s candor in giving voice to his skepticism (John 1:46) as simply doing what did for Simon [John 1:42]: looking at him and seeing not what he is but what he will become. Nor does Nathanael’s reply (John 1:48a) mean that he immodestly considers himself “a true Israelite.” He merely expresses surprise that Jesus speaks as of they had met before. (Michaels, <i>John (New International Biblical Commentary Series)</I>, 40)</blockquote>
John R. Claypool (1930-2005) approves:
<blockquote>Nathanael must have been surprised that, at first glance, Jesus was affirming him as a true son of Abraham, who had no deceit [John 1:47]. Synonyms for the word...<i>deceit</I> are: guile, cunning, slyness, wiliness, craftiness, cleverness, deceptiveness, hypocrisy, and duplicity. Jesus was giving Nathanael a huge compliment by saying that these negative qualities were not part of his character. (Claypool, <i>The First to Follow: The Apostles of Jesus</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Nathanael is a straight shooter. <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/B/Gary-Burge STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gary M. Burge</a> (b. 1952) reads:
<blockquote>Jesus calls Nathanael “a true Israelite in whom there is nothing false” [John 1:47]. The RSV renders this “no guile” and the NRSV translates “no deceit.” Jesus sees in Nathanael a good man, an honest man. (<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig A. Evans</a> [b. 1952], <i>John, Hebrews-Revelation ( Bible Knowledge Background Commentary)</i>, 46)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.stonehill.edu/directory/richard-gribble/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard Gribble</a> (b. 1952) updates:
<blockquote>Nathanael [is]...described by Jesus as “an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” [John 1:47] Today we would say Nathanael is the “real McCoy” — what you see is what you get. (Gribble, <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/in/churchlawyer STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David T. Ball</a> [b. 1950], John T. Ball [b. 1933], <a href=http://www.revgeorgereed.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George Reed</a> [b. 1948] and <a href=http://www.stanpurdum.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stan Purdum</a> [b. 1945], <i>Sermons on the Gospel Readings: Cycle B</I>, 73)</blockquote>
Elton W. Brown (b. 1944) envisions:
<blockquote>Nathanael is excellent disciple material because he is without guile [John 1:47]. Nathanael would make a terrible poker player but a wonderful friend...This is not one of those cases where God takes a miserable sinner and turns him into a saint. This is one of those equally remarkable cases where God takes a person who is humanly praiseworthy in every way and makes of him something more—a disciple. (<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=29 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. Bartlett</a> [b. 1941] and <a href=http://www.barbarabrowntaylor.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barbara Brown Taylor</a> [b. 1951], <i>Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration</i>, 262)</blockquote>
<a href=https://bible.org/users/bob-deffinbaugh STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert L. Deffinbaugh</a> (b. 1943) clarifies:
<blockquote>Jesus does not say, <b>“Behold, an Israelite in whom there is no sin.”</b> Nathanael is a sinner, like every other man (except out Lord [II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15]). (Deffinbaugh, <i>That You Might Believe: A Study on the Gospel of John</I>, 57)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.tsm.edu/faculty_profiles/the_rev_dr_rodney_a_whitacre STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rodney A. Whitacre</a> (b. 1949) adds:
<blockquote>Nathanael is described as <i>one in whom there is nothing false</I> (John 1:47). This does not mean that he has no wrong beliefs, as the word <i>false</I> in the NIV might suggest. Rather, the word <i>dolos</I> suggests a more fundamental internal disposition in which there is no deceit. He is honest and clear-sighted, his eye is single (cf. Luke 11:34 NRSV), he has a clear conscience (cf. II Timothy 1:3). He is the sort who seeks God before all else. No one is without falseness within, but there are those who nevertheless desire truth before anything. Most of us must be pruned for years before we approach such single-hearted desire for God. Mercifully God accepts us before we even begin to desire him, and by his grace he undertakes the purging of all our duplicity and deceitfulness. (Whitacre, <i>John (IVP New Testament Commentary)</I>, 74)</blockquote>
The precise meaning of the expression “an Israelite...in whom there is no deceit!” is unclear (John 1:47 NASB). Sjef Van Tilborg (1939-2003) recognizes:
<blockquote>The logic of the argument to convince him [Nathanael] remains rather obscure. The sentence ‘here is a real Israelite; there is nothing false in him’ [John 1:47], probably refers to John 1:31. Jesus’ manifestation by John (the Baptist) is complete with Nathanael. It not unlikely that there is also a reference to Jacob-Israel, the impostor (Genesis 27:35). That would, then, be a first preparation to John 1:51. It is unclear how this can be combined with Jesus’ mysterious knowledge that he saw Nathanael ‘under the fig tree’ [John 1:48]. This phrase has loosened the imagination of many readers but has not resulted into a univoque signification (cf. Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1966: 83, 87, 89). (Van Tilborg, <i>Imaginative Love in John</I>, 115)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/Clark-Soles STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jaime Clark-Soles</a> (b. 1967) connects:
<blockquote>Nathanael calls him Son of God [John 1:49], reflecting the perspective of the narrator in the Prologue [John 1:1-18]. Nathanael, the first to be called an Israelite [John 1:47], also represents John the Baptist’s contention that Jesus was to be made manifest to <i>Israel</I> [John 1:31]. Jesus will stingingly address Nicodemus as The Teacher of Israel [John 3:10], a nearly unbearable irony for the reader. (<a href=http://www.ccuniversity.edu/graduate/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tom Thatcher</a> [b. 1967] and <a href=http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/staff/catrin-h-williams/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Catrin H. Williams</a> [b. 1964], “Characters Who Count: The Case of Nicodemus”, <i>Engaging with C. H. Dodd [1884-1973] on the Gospel of John: Sixty Years of Tradition and Interpretation</I>, 131)</blockquote>
Alan R. Kerr (b. 1942) posits:
<blockquote>An obvious comparison with Jacob (later named Israel in Genesis 35:10), who deceived his father Isaac (Genesis 27:35: “Your brother came deceitfully [Septuagint has μετὰ δόλου],and he has taken away your blessing’). However, what does it mean to call Nathanael ‘a genuine Israelite in whom there is no deceit’ [John 1:47]? Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] (<i>John</I>, I, p.87) translates the phrase as ‘a genuine Israelite without guile’, and I think this emphasizes Nathanael’s commitment to the truth <i>as an Israelite</I>. Some scholars focus on the words ἐν ὠ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν and find there is an allusion to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:9, which speaks of one ‘in whose mouth there was no guile’. Brown’s own suggestion arises from John 1:31: ‘The very reason why I came and baptized with water was that he [Jesus] might be revealed to <i>Israel</I>’. Although Brown is rather enigmatic here, we take it that he considers the Baptist’s word are (at least partly) fulfilled in the revelation that comes to Nathanael, the representative to Israel. My view is that Nathanael is a genuine Israelite, because, according to the Fourth Gospel, he represents the fulfillment of Israelite religion, namely, faith in Jesus, the one ‘whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote’ (John 1:45). The entire focus of Israelite faith is Jesus. And those that are not turned aside by the ‘father of lies’ (John 8:44) will follow Jesus, who is the truth. Nathanael is one who does this. He responds to Philip’s call and follows the one to whom the prophets testify, namely, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth (cf. John 5:39-47). (Kerr, <i>The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John</I>, 141-42)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jerome H. Neyrey</a> (b. 1940) discusses:
<blockquote>Nathanael was praised as a “true Israelite...without guile” (John 1:47). As Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976] has shown, this need not be anything more than a popular designation of praise. On the level of the story, Nathanael is an Israelite,” a term which contrasts him with Jesus’ enemies, “the Judeans.” His guilelessness, moreover, is to be explained from the pattern of his faith, which is contrasted with the rejection of Jesus by unbelievers. Nathanael knows the preaching about Jesus, especially the claim that Jesus fulfills the Scriptures (John 1:45); but he poses objections to applying the Scriptures to a peasant from Nazareth (John 1:46). Yet these objections do not prevent him from further inquiry, for he “comes and sees” for himself — difficulties notwithstanding (John 1:46b). In this he is sharply contrasted with “Judeans,” who likewise hear the proclamation but object to Jesus’ messiahship using the very Scriptures as arguments (see John 7:27, 41-42, 52) and so fail to come to Jesus. Nathanael, then, typifies both a wisdom process of “searching the Scriptures” for Jesus (see John 5:39, 46-47) and the overcoming of objections that the Scriptures could not possibly refer to the peasant from Nowheresville. Nathanael is like Jacob, moreover, not the devious character who grabbed his brother’s heel at birth [Genesis 25:26] and stole his brother’s birthright [Genesis 25:27-34] and blessing [Genesis 27:1-46], but the perfect Jacob, the man of wisdom. Like Jacob, Nathanael comes “second,” after the founding apostles; he must labor for his reward; and he is clever and enterprising (Genesis 29:1-30:43). There is simply no evidence to suggest at this level of the story that Nathanael is like Jacob as “one who sees God.” (Neyrey, “‘Are You Greater than Our Father Jacob’: Jesus and Jacob in John 1:51 and John 4:4-26”, <i>The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective</I>, 89-90)</blockquote>
Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) infers:
<blockquote>As the true Israelite [John 1:47], Nathanael identifies Jesus as the “King of Israel” [John 1:49], a traditional messianic title (cf. Mark 15:26). Thus Nathanael can represent the authentic Israel insofar as he recognizes and confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised anointed one [John 1:49]. (Collins, <i>These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel</i>, 13)</blockquote>
Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) condenses:
<blockquote>For John the true Israelite is Nathanel (John 1:47) who believes in Jesus. True Israelites are not born of carnal lineage (John 1:13) but begotten of water and Spirit (John 3:5); they are children of God because they are believers (John 1:12). (Brown, <i>An Introduction to the Gospel of John</i>, 227)</blockquote>
<a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> (b. 1946) projects:
<blockquote>These passages not only show that Jesus’ identification of Nathanael is meant to echo a familiar passage from the Torah, they also set the expectation that those who are true Israelites will come to Jesus, while those who reject him show that they are actually not of Israel. (Culpepper, <i>The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts)</I>, 126)</blockquote>
Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) interjects:
<blockquote>Because of his willingness to come to Jesus, the true (ἀληθινόν) light” (John 1:9), Nathanael is given the title “true (ἀληθως) Israelite” [John 1:47]. “The purity of the true disciple mirrors the purity of the Lamb himself [John 1:29, 36].” Nathanael’s straightforwardness in encountering Jesus and his confession of faith leads to Jesus’ self-disclosure as the Son of Man, who is the revealer of the Father. (Hera, <i>Christology and Discipleship in John 17</I>, 61)</blockquote>
Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) ascertains:
<blockquote>The narrative suggests that Nathanael is a part of the experience of the disciples who have come to Jesus so far. The rhythm of the previous day is repeated [John 1:35-42]. Nathanael does not come to faith by seeing Jesus; Jesus has seen him first [John 1:47]. The initiative lies with Jesus. He is greeted as an Israelite without God [John 1:47]. Jesus describes a man who is honest in his frankness (unlike Jacob in Genesis 27:35-36), without lies (Psalm 32:2; Isaiah 53:9), who does not prostitute himself to false gods (Revelation 14:5). Here is a man worthy to recognize all that has been promised in the Scriptures (see John 1:45). (Moloney, <i>Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel: John 1-4</i>, 71)</blockquote>
Whatever its precise connotation, the distinction “an Israelite ...in whom there is no deceit” is highly favorable (John 1:47). <a href=http://www.bloomsbury.com/author/mary-b-spaulding STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mary B. Spaulding</a> (b. 1952) proclaims:
<blockquote>In John 1:49 ‘king of Israel’ is the parallel title to ‘Son of God’ through the revelation concerning Jesus of Nathanael, who is himself called by Jesus in John 1:47 truly an Israelite in whom there is no δόλος. This is high praise indeed for a human being since throughout the Gospel human beings exhibit great propensity for deceit, cunning and falsehood. The aspect of Nathanael’s character which results in his immediate recognition of and belief in Jesus is being commended with this appellation. Both uses of ’Ισραήλ in John 1:47 and John 1:47 are therefore positive and affirming. (Spaulding, <i>Commemorative Identities: Jewish Social Memory and the Johannine Feast of Booths</I>, 87)</blockquote>
<a href=http://elmertowns.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Elmer Towns</a> (b. 1932) upholds:
<blockquote>While most Christians tend to think negatively of Jacob, it is interesting to note he is called a peaceful man (Genesis 25:27). The Hebrew word translated “peaceful” has been variously interpreted as a perfect or upright man, or a man of quiet and simple habits. To be recognized as a true Israelite without guile was among the highest compliments a Jew could receive [John 1:47]. (Towns, <i>The Gospel of John: Believe and Live (Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary)</I>, 14)</blockquote>
Nathanael accepts Jesus’ claim (John 1:48) and his actions seem to further validate it. He demonstrates little tact and is depicted as being totally transparent. Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) discusses:
<blockquote>The narrator gives no explanation why Jesus makes such a statement concerning Nathanael [John 1:47]. But, at least in the dialogue between Nathanael and Jesus, that follows this statement, the audience finds Nathanael to be someone who is open to receive the revelation of Jesus, about whom Moses and the prophets wrote [John 1:45]. His straightforwardness in confronting Jesus leads to the pronouncement of a deeper truth about Jesus’ identity...Nathanael’s response to Jesus, “How do you know me?” (John 1:48) implies that he agrees with Jesus’ statement that he is a true Israelite. This confirms Jesus’ view of Nathanael’s character as a man without deceit. “A more guileful man would have ‘modestly’ asserted his unworthiness.” (Hera, <i>Christology and Discipleship in John 17</I>, 56-57)</blockquote>
R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) bridges:
<blockquote>Jesus emphasized that Nathanael was a transparent, honest man [John 1:47]. That is probably why Nathanael reacted to Philip’s news by saying, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” [John1:46] He said what he thought. I think that characteristic was confirmed by Nathanael’ reaction to Jesus’ words: “How do you know me?” [John 1:48] Now if Jesus said to me, “Behold, a believer in whom is no guile!” I would probably say, “Me? Not me. But I guess if you say so, maybe I am.” But Nathanael just owned up to it. He was in fact a guileless man [John 1:47]. (Hughes, <i>John: That You May Believe (Preaching the Word)</I>, 51)</blockquote>
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) challenges:
<blockquote>The description scarcely refers to the fact the Nathanael...has spoken out openly [John 1:46]—for why then should he have kept anything back from Philip? Rather one would think that Nahanael shows himself to be without δόλος in what follows. But since the statement, which is intended to show the knowledge of men’s hearts, is shown to be correct in Nathanael’s question in John 1:48, it must have referred to a state of affairs already in existence; this is perhaps hinted at in John 1:48. (Bultmann, <i>The Gospel of John: A Commentary</I>, 104)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/d-moody-smith STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D. Moody Smith</a> (b. 1931) presses:
<blockquote>Nathanael’s response (John 1:48) confirms Jesus’ judgment about his innocense; his ignorance is not culpable. Those who pretend to know, and do not, are the really guilty (cf. John 9:40-11). (Smith, <i>John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 76)</blockquote>
Severino Pancaro proposes:
<blockquote>It is a result of <i>such a confession</I> [John 1:48] that Nathanael is designated as a true Israelite, an Israelite worthy of the name [John 1:47]. The fact that Jesus calls him a true Israelite before his confession of faith is irrelevant. It is because he is a true Israelite that he “confesses” Jesus, it is because he “confesses” Jesus that he is a true Israelite...The designation of Nathanael as a true Israelite is related to his confession of faith, but the profession of faith is itself related to John 1:45. Nathanael is called a true Israelite because he recognizes Jesus as <i>the one about whom Moses wrote in the Law</I> [John 1:45]. This aspect is important because it marks the continuity between the members of the Israel of old and the “new” Israel...Because Jesus is the one about whom Moses wrote belief on him does not mean to break with the tradition which goes back to Moses but rather to give it its true value. Those who believe in Jesus are the true heirs of the Mosaic tradition—true Israelites! (<i>The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John</I>, 292-93)</blockquote>
Nathanael is given high praise (John 1:47). And he seems to live up to this billing. More importantly, it will be this commendation that will draw him closer to Jesus (John 1:47-51).
<p><font color="#66CD00">Does Jesus acknowledge Nathanael’s derogatory remark in any way (John 1:46-47)? How do you answer criticism; have you ever responded to it with a compliment? What is the relationship between honesty and skepticism? How does Jesus gain his information about Nathanael (John 1:47); can he tell just by looking? Why does Jesus call Nathanael “an Israelite...in whom there is no deceit” (John 1:47); what else could he have said? Who do you know who resembles this remark? If Nathanael represents the true Israelite, who is the impostor? How would you characterize Nathanael? Is Nathanael the most positively depicted of Jesus’ disciples? When have you been addressed by your character traits? What is the biggest compliment you have ever received? What would you want Jesus to say of you? What traits are good to lack? Are there disadvantages to having no guile? When has someone you did not know addressed you as though they knew you? How does Nathanael receive this remark? How would you have taken it?</font>
<p>Jesus is the prime mover in his encounter with Nathanael (John 1:43-51). <a href=http://www.multnomah.edu/bio/paul-metzger/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Paul L. Metzger</a> (b. 1964) emphasizes:
<blockquote>Jesus finds Philip, and not the other way around [John 1:43]. What would you expect from a God who is alive and loving? He doesn’t wait for us to seek him; he seeks us out! It is Jesus’ declaration to Nathanael [John 1:47], followed by Jesus’ promise to him that Nathanael would meet God [John 1:50], that moves Nathanael beyond cynicism about Jesus of <i>Nazareth</I> to belief in him as the Messiah [John 1:49]. Instead of rejecting Jesus because he views Nazareth as a godforsaken place, Nathanael now looks at Jesus himself as the place where God meets us (John 1:43-51). (Metzger, <i>The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town</I>, 44)</blockquote>
Jesus’ approach cuts Nathanael to the core. <a href=https://www.facebook.com/olbricht STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Thomas H. Olbricht</a> (b. 1929) presses:
<blockquote>Not only did Jesus address him directly, he also worded a compliment so explicit that no one in his right mind would say this without prior detailed knowledge [John 1:47]. (<a href=http://www.lipscomb.edu/bible/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dave Fleer</a> [b. 1953] and <a href=http://hst.edu/our-community/faculty/bland/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dave Bland</a> [b. 1953], “Nathanel, a Disciple by Water and the Word,” <i>Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines</I>, 94)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.samford.edu/news/2013/Dr__William_Hull,_Theologian_and_Former_Samford_Provost,_Dies_at_83.aspx#.VAC7NcakqxU STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William E. Hull</a> (1930-2013) audits:
<blockquote>The strategy of Jesus was even more striking than that of Philip [John 1:46]. No sooner did he see <B><i>Nathanael coming to him</i></b> than he praised this one who had just belittled his origins: <b><i>Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile</i></b> [John 1:47]. The picture of the model pious Jew confronted Nathanael with his deepest sense of identity, with that style which he sought most passionately to emulate. No wonder he exclaimed in the face of such uncanny insight into his inner commitments, <b><i>How do you know me?</i></b> (cf. John 2:25). (<a href=http://www.sbhla.org/downloads/795-221.pdf>Clifton J. Allen</a> [1901-1986], <i>Luke–John (Broadman Bible Commentary)</I>, 226)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/martin-scott/3a/66a/449 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Martin Scott</a> connects:
<blockquote>Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] has...noted a number of parallels between the call to discipleship in the Fourth Gospel and that of Sophia’s method of seeking out her followers. Firstly we may note the way in which the Johannine Jesus calls disciples: he seeks them out in public places, be it the men of chapter 1 [John 1:34-51] or the Samaritan woman of chapter 4 [John 4:7-30]...So it is also with Sophia, who appears in the public places to call out to people to respond and follow her ways (Proverbs 1:20021, 8:1-4; Wisdom of Solomon 6:16). There may even be a direct parallel between the idea of Wisdom of Solomon 6:16 and that of John 1:47, Sophia seeking out those worthy of her, and Jesus sophia seeking out Nathanael, in whom there is no δόλος. Certainly, both Sophia and the Johannine Jesus are very open in their search and appear to know exactly who they want for their disciples. (Scott, <i>Sophia and the Johannine Jesus</I>, 156)</blockquote>
Though Jesus’ affirmation is a relatively small gesture (John 1:47), it is enough to turn the tide in the story and in Nathanael’s life. Initially it prompts him to ask Christ how he knows him (John 1:47-48).
<p><a href=http://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce J. Malina</a> (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) correct:
<blockquote>The NRSV translation here, “Where did you get to know me?” is completely anachronistic [John 1:48]. It implies a modern type of social interaction in which people get personally acquainted. A better translation of the Greek would read, “From where do you know me to come?” That is, Nathanael assumes Jesus would know him if he knows where he is from. If Jesus can identify the place of Nathanael’s origin, he would know all there is to know about him...Note that in John 21:2 we are told that Nathanael is from Cana, a small Galilean village near Nazareth. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, <i>Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John</I>, 56)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael Card</a> (b. 1957) perceives:
<blockquote>Jesus’ compliment appears to make Nathanael somewhat suspicious. He wonders out loud how Jesus can know him (John 1:48). (Card, <i>John: The Gospel of Wisdom (<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/#!biblicalimagination/c1ild STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Biblical Imagination Series</a>)</I>, 45)</blockquote>
Though Nathanael asks two decidedly different questions, the underlying issue remains constant (John 1:46, 48). Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) traces:
<blockquote>Nathanael, omitting any salutation of honor or respect, asks Jesus directly where he got to known him (<i>pothen me ginōskeis</I>) [John 1:48]. The question of origins is still present: what are the origins of Jesus’ knowledge? (Moloney, <i>The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 56)</blockquote>
Jesus informs Nathanael that he saw him beneath a fig tree which elicits a profound profession of faith: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel” (John 1:49 NASB).
<p>Jesus’ tactics are remarkably effective. John R. Claypool (1930-2005) esteems:
<blockquote>Once he [Nathanael] was in the presence of Jesus, he surrendered completely, without reserve. He was wonderfully transparent, without any hidden agenda. His honest, open, and spontaneous temperament led him to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God as quickly as he had doubted him, at first [John 1:49]. (Claypool, <i>The First to Follow: The Apostles of Jesus</I>, 62)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.eastern.edu/academics/programs/christian-studies-department/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth H. Maahs</a> (b. 1940) identifies:
<blockquote>Here, in chapter one, he [Nathanael] is the first person in the Gospel said to <i>believe</I> (John 1:50, a powerful word in John’s vocabulary). He is, therefore, the first to model that level of commitment that is accepted as genuine salvation in John’s Gospel. His story highlights the Prologue theme found in John 1:7, 12; it is genuine belief that makes one a child of God. (Maahs, <i>The John You Never Knew: Decoding the Fourth Gospel</I>, 53)</blockquote>
Nathanael draws his conclusion from relatively little data. <a href=http://www.craddocksermons.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fred B. Craddock</a> (b. 1928) muses:
<blockquote>Nathanael’s confession of faith is too enormous, too elaborate, to have been prompted by Jesus’ special knowledge [John 1:49]. It seems now to be the case that Nathanael is voicing the community’s faith, not what a person would say upon meeting Jesus. In fact, as the “true Israelite” [John 1:47], Nathanael, who is never mentioned in the lists of Jesus’ disciples in the other Gospels and Acts [Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13], could be the paradigm of believing Israel, those Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah. (Craddock, <i>John (Knox Preaching Guides)</I>, 20)</blockquote>
David A. Redelings (b. 1956) defends:
<blockquote>It is...implausible that characters who come to believe in Jesus would be generally portrayed as believing on grounds that the Evangelist considers unwarranted. Yet their apparent reasons for belief seem the same as for people who were sympathetic to Jesus...Nathanael knows only of Jesus’ prophetic powers and a claim that he is the messiah [John 1:45-51]. The woman of Samaria has a similar knowledge [John 4:7-26, 39-45]. The royal official initially knows only Jesus’ reputation for miracles, and that he was sent from God [John 4:46-54]. The man born blind knows little more [John 9:1-34]. It seems then, that these beliefs about miracles are regarded as sufficient to evoke a genuine belief in Jesus. (Redelings, <i>The Epistemological Basis for Belief according to Johns Gospel: Miracles and Message in Their Essentials As Non-Fictional Grounds for Knowledge of God</i>, 90)</blockquote>
<a href=https://lancasterseminary.edu/faculty/adjunct-faculty/lee-barrett STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lee Barrett</a> (b. 1950) discerns:
<blockquote>The application of the titles Son of God and King of Israel [John 1:49] to Jesus is justified by his exercise of divine power and royal authority. Such power and authority are evident in his ability to awaken in people a believing response not based on empirical evidence. Philip simply hears the imperative “Follow” and obediently does exactly that [John 1:43-45]. Even more dramatically, Nathanael, with no verbal command from Jesus, comes, sees, hears, and spontaneously follows [John 1:47-51]...Theologians from John Calvin [1509-1564] to <a href=http://kbarth.org/>Karl Barth</a> [1886-1968] have noted in this passage the following of Jesus is not the fruit of any individual’s deliberation and choice. Here confessing Jesus seems to follow with a certain necessity from merely seeing or hearing him. Calvin, and generations of Reformed theologians after him, would cite this as evidence of the election of certain individuals to fellowship with Christ. Barth, changing the theological idiom, would describe it as the attractive power of a preexisting bond established by God’s incarnation in Jesus. In any case, the common theme is that the encounter with Christ is the potent force that propels Philip and Nathanael; it is the sheer presence of Christ that draws them. (<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=29 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. Bartlett</a> [b. 1941] and <a href=http://www.barbarabrowntaylor.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Barbara Brown Taylor</a> [b. 1951], <i>Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration</i>, 262)</blockquote>
<a href=http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/ankelly/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Anthony J. Kelly</a> (b. 1938 and Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) profess:
<blockquote>The Word can speak despite, and even through, the limitations of human communication. When Jesus now sees the new disciple approaching, he utters words of praise about him [John 1:47]. Nathanael is coming in a way that contrasts with the blinkered approach of the other disciples. Yet he too exhibits limitations. (Kelly and Moloney, <i>Experiencing God in the Gospel of John</I>, 68)</blockquote>
Nathanael’s is just one of many faithful responses to Christ (John 1:45-41). <a href=http://www.winebrenner.edu/ProspectiveStudents/Academics/Faculty/DrJamesLResseguie.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James L. Resseguie</a> (b. 1945) summarizes:
<blockquote><a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> [b. 1946], <i>Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel</I>, 146-148 identifies seven types of faith responses: 1) rejection; 2) acceptance without open commitment; 3) acceptance of Jesus as a worker of signs and wonders; 4) belief in Jesus’ words; 5) commitment in spite of misunderstandings; 6) pragmatic discipleship; 7) defection. (Resseguie, <i>The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John</I>, 109)</blockquote>
Though it takes place within a single conversation, Nathanael’s conversion is incremental (John 1:45-51). <a href=http://cdsp.edu/academics/faculty/profiles/rev-dr-ruth-meyers STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruth A. Meyers</a> (b. 1957) charts:
<blockquote>Nathanael...embodies the movement from doubt to faith. When Philip first introduces Jesus as the “son of Joseph from Nazareth,” Nathanael questions whether anything good can come from Nazareth [John 1:46]. Yet he accepts Philip’s invitation to see for himself [John 1:46], and upon meeting Jesus, affirms his identity as son of God and King of Israel [John 1:49]. (<a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/4850/David-B-Lott STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David B. Lott</a>, <i>New Proclamation Commentary on Feasts, Holy Days, and Other Celebrations</I>, 170)</blockquote>
John F. Craghan (b. 1936) opines:
<blockquote>This passage [John 1:43-51] highlights the gradual process of coming to faith in Jesus. What is more important perhaps is that the gift of faith, though incipient, becomes a contagious reality. Faith in Jesus can never be reduced to a purely personal and individualistic gift. Rather, disciples must share this gift with others. In this episode Jesus finds Philip but Philip finds Nathanael [John 1:43-45]. This passage must prompt modern disciples to look beyond themselves to those countless others whom they can evangelize. (Craghan, <i>The Gospels of the Weekday Lectionary: Commentary and Reflections</i>)</blockquote>
In this encounter, both Jesus and Nathanael gain understanding of one another (John 1:47-51). They share a mutual appreciation. They click.
<p><a href=http://divinity.wfu.edu/faculty/faculty-listings/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gail R. O’Day</a> (b. 1954) realizes:
<blockquote>Jesus recognizes Nathanael as “an Israelite in whom there is no deceit” [John 1:47], simply by virtue of having seen Nathanael under the fig tree [John 1:48]. Jesus’ recognition of him leads to Nathanael to declare Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel [John 1:49]. With both Nathanael [John 1:47-51] and the Samaritan woman [John 4:7-26, 39-45], Jesus’ demonstration of perception and insight leads to increased perception and insight about Jesus’ identity on the part of his conversation partners. (O’Day, <i>The Word Disclosed: Preaching the Gospel of John</I>, 49)</blockquote>
Jesus and Nathanael truly see each other. <a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/williamson_jr_the_rev_dr_and_mrs_lamar/STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lamar Williamson, Jr.</a> (b. 1926) pursues:
<blockquote>In Jesus’ dialogue with Nathanael (John 1:47-51) the theme of finding gives way to that of seeing (John 1:46, 47, 48, 50, 51). Even while Nathanael is on his way to see Jesus, Jesus sees him coming and says (translated literally), “Look! Truly an Israelite in whom is no falsehood (treachery or deceit)” [John 1:47]. Jesus sees more than the figure in the road; he sees Nathanael’s heart and knows him through and through. Nathanael, amazed, asks (paraphrased), “Where did you get to know me?” [John 1:48] Jesus’ answer, “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you” [John 1:48], indicates more than clairvoyance. It links seeing and knowing, a recurrent theme in the Fourth Gospel. For Nathanael it is evidence of divine omniscience. Jesus’ answer completes the three-way link of seeing, knowing, and believing. The promise “You will see greater things than these” [John 1:51] is an invitation to Nathanael to keep watching and to the reader to keep reading with a readiness to look and see. (Williamson, <i>Preaching the Gospel of John: Proclaiming the Living Word</I>, 19)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/13 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Steve Motyer</a> (b. 1950) deliberates:
<blockquote>Apocalyptic, visionary language if applied to the seeing of the <i>Word in the flesh</I> [John 1:1]. There is no further need for visionary access to God. The “seeing” of John 1:14 is picked up and recapitulated by the repeated verbs of revelation and of seeing in chapter 1 [John 1:29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51]... Here there is a mutual “seeing,” of Jesus by the disciples, and of the disciples by Jesus, a seeing which culminates in the dramatic promise of John 1:51. The apocalyptic quality of this “seeing” is underlined by the prophetic insight shown by both Jesus and Nathanael in their encounter in John 1:47-50. Both are able instinctively to “see” things about the other which prompt them to testify about each other. (John Lierman [b. 1965], “Narrative Theology in John 1-5”, <i>Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John</I>, 206)</blockquote>
René Kieffer (1930-2013) sees:
<blockquote>Implicitly the readers are invited to join the disciples and understand that Jesus is calling them. If they come to believe they will also see heaven opened. The device used by the evangelist is that of an ‘isotopy.’ He plays on different meanings of the same word: ‘to see’ is normally a physical activity, depending on our eyes. We employ the expression in a figurative sense to designate an intellectual activity: ‘I see, I understand.’ But we can also use metaphorical sight for spiritual activities, a prophetic vision, or a vision of faith. We say: ‘to believe with the eyes of faith’. The evangelist uses different Greek words (ὁραν, ἰδειν, ὄψεσθαι, βλέπειν, θεασθαι, θεωρειν) nearly as synonyms in order to describe three aspects: to see earthly things (e.g. Jesus who is coming), to see in a supernatural way (e.g. Nathanael under the fig tree [John 1:48]), or to see the reality of supernatural things with the eyes of faith (e.g. that heaven is opened). Through this discourse the readers are encouraged, with Nathanael, to look at Jesus not with physical eyes but with faith. (<a href=http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/id(ef51ba1a-aa9f-4136-8052-61340372459b).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Johannes Nissen</a> [b. 1944] and Sigfred Pedersen [1932-2010], “The Implied Reader in John’s Gospel,” <i>New Readings in John</i>, 55)</blockquote>
Some have even seen the connection between Nathanael and Jesus as possessing the characteristics of a betrothal scene. <a href=http://marycoloe.org.au/homepage/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mary L. Coloe</a> (b. 1949) correlates:
<blockquote>The meeting with Nathanael...appears to draw on customs of the betrothal ceremony for in this initial encounter a small sign is given, when Jesus reveals surprising knowledge of Nathanael, “an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” (John 1:47), and Nathanael responds with a confession of faith (John 1:49). The sign is followed by a promise of even greater things in the future when Nathanael will see what his ancestor Jacob/Israel once saw (Genesis 28:12). Nathanael will experience Bethel, the House of God [Genesis 28:10-17]...At the betrothal, a part of the dowry would be given by the groom with the promise of the rest to follow at the wedding. (<a href=http://www.theologie.uzh.ch/faecher/neues-testament/joerg-frey.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jörg Frey</a> [b. 1962], <a href=http://janvanderwatt.wordpress.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jan G. Van der Watt</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.ev.theologie.uni-mainz.de/eng/2316.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ruben Zimmermann</a> [b. 1968], “Witness and Friend: Symbolism associated with John the Baptiser”, <i>Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language</I>, 328)</blockquote>
Many have presumed that Nathanael represents an archetype. <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/kevin-quast/30/268/431 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kevin Quast</a> (b. 1957) asks:
<blockquote>If the Beloved Disciple [John 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21], as an actual person, could indeed assume symbolic significance in this Gospel, is he the only one to do so? John the Baptist, Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the woman, the royal official whose son was healed, the healed lame man, the man born blind, Philip, Lazarus, Judas, Peter, Mary—the mother of Jesus, Mary Madalen and Thomas have all been presented as representative figures in the Gospel of John. (Quast, <i>Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis</I>, 21)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.christopherwskinner.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Christopher W. Skinner</a> (b. 1973) advises:
<blockquote><a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-domeris/89/1a5/337 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William R. Domeris</a> explores the ‘Johannine Drama’, finding a number of parallels between the Gospel and Greek tragedy. Regarding Fourth Gospel characters, Domeris notes: ‘As John introduces each of his main characters, Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, Martha, Thomas, and others, we become aware...[that] <i>they serve a representative function</I>. Thus, “<i>Nathanael represents the view of the true Israelite</I> (cf. John 1:47), who recognizes Jesus as the messianic king and the fulfillment of the hope of the Old Testament (cf. John 1:45). (Skinner, <i>Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John</I>, xxi)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.barton.edu/faculty-directory/jane-s-webster/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jane S. Webster</a> (b. 1953) distinguishes:
<blockquote>Naming does not necessarily indicate representation of a larger group. For example, Nathanael (John 1:51) and Nicodemus (John 3:7, 11, 12) both represent a larger group (addressed with a plural ‘you’). The mother of Jesus, the blind man and lame man may or may not represent a larger collective. (<a href=http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amy-Jill Levine</a> [b. 1956] with <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianneblickenstaff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marianne Blickenstaff</a> [b. 1959], “Transcending Alterity: Strange Woman to Samaritan Woman”, <i>A Feminist Companion to John, Volume 1</I>, 131)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) pronounces:
<blockquote>It is hard to miss the hint here that Nathanael is meant to be seen as a type of the skeptical but honest Jewish person who will require some evidence and convincing before believing in Jesus [John 1:45-51]. This should make his witness all the more compelling to listeners who may also have had considerable doubts. As we shall see, Nathanael gains credibility as a witness not only because he is not easily taken in, but also because we are told he is one without guile [John 1:47], an essential trait of a good witness. (Witherington, <i>John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel</i>, 71)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/13 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Steve Motyer</a> (b. 1950) diagnoses:
<blockquote>Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan and the βασιλικός...represent types who were all mutually untouchable or at least antagonistic toward one another. Nathanael is best understood as a passionate nationalist – an “Israelite indeed” [John 1:47]! Jesus identifies Nathanael as a mighty champion of Israel’s cause – a Zealot in spirit, if not in action – and in return Nathanael calls Jesus “King of Israel,” that is, identifies him as a political liberator [John 1:49]. This is probably the way in which the narrative would most naturally have been read in the late first century. (John Lierman [b. 1965], “Narrative Theology in John 1-5”, <i>Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John</I>, 207-08)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.eastern.edu/academics/programs/christian-studies-department/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth H. Maahs</a> (b. 1940) directs:
<blockquote>Thomas L. Brodie [b. 1940] takes the role of Philip [John 1:43-45] in this lineup to be representative of the Gentile world (Philip and the Greeks), even as Nathanael [John 1:45-51] will represent the Jewish destiny (164-67)...See the intriguing discussion, “Nathanael as a Representative Character” in Thomas L. Brodie [b. 1940] 168-70, where he links his call to the eschatological return of the Jews in Romans 9:1-11:36. Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] also calls him “a symbol of Israel coming to God” (I, 82). (Maahs, <i>The John You Never Knew: Decoding the Fourth Gospel</I>, 58)</blockquote>
Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) explores:
<blockquote>Apart from his role as an individual, Nathanael seems also to have a representative character. As <a href=http://www.westcotthort.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Brooke Foss Westcott</a> [1825-1901] (23) indicated, his very name (<i>nathana-El</I>, “God has given”), when taken in the context of the other disciples’ names, suggests that he represents what is Hebrew or Jewish. Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976] (98) notes that the entire Nathanael narrative is Semitic in tone...Furthermore, Philip’s announcement to him emphasizes continuity with the Hebrew Scriptures (“Moses and the prophets” [John 1:45]). He himself is addressed as a “true Israelite” [John 1:47], and he in turn addresses Jesus as “Rabbi” and “King of Israel” [John 1:49]. As Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] concludes, he is a “symbol of Israel coming to God.”...Two further details suggest a connection between Nathanael and the Jews. He is the first person in the gospel who is described as believing (John 1:50)—a distinction which suits someone who represents those who were the first to believe. And he is without guile (<i>dolos</I>, John 1:47)—a word which, apart from a list of vices (Mark 7:21-22), is used in the New Testament only of the Jews (Matthew 26:4; Mark 14:1; Acts 13:10). The Jews acted out of guile and so Nathanael, being without guile, could be a representative of a renewed Judaism. (Brodie, <i>The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary</I>, 168-69)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.eastern.edu/academics/programs/christian-studies-department/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth H. Maahs</a> (b. 1940) ponders:
<blockquote>Jesus’ intriguing statement seems to indicate that there are different types of Israelites, an insight well attested in Romans 9:6. The genuine Israelite or true descendant of Abraham believes in and accepts Jesus as the Messiah. John may mean, then, for this man to stand as a symbolic representative of the “model Israelite” (<a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">R. Alan Culpepper</a> [b. 1946], 123), or perhaps the whole church seen as the continuation of spiritual Israel. But he is not a mere ideal figure who has no genuine historical reality; he is mentioned one further time in John 21:2, where his reality is assured. (Maahs, <i>The John You Never Knew: Decoding the Fourth Gospel</I>, 53)</blockquote>
One indicator that Nathanael represents a larger group is a subtle shift to the plural in the pericope’s final verse (John 1:51). George Mlakuzhyil (b. 1942) dissects:
<blockquote>Most Johannine source critics and commentators admit the presence of an aporia at John 1:51 for the following reasons: 1) although Jesus had been talking to Nathanael in...John 1:50, John 1:51 begins with <i>kai legei auto[i]</I>; 2) even though the <i>amên amên</I> saying is addressed to Nathanael (cf. the singular <i>auto[i]</I> in John 1:51a), the plural <i>hymim</I> of John 1:51b and <i>opesthe</I> of John 1:51c suggest that Jesus has a wider audience in mind; 3) after the <i>meizô toutôn opsê[i]</i> of John 1:50 which could be an indirect reference to the Cana miracle that follows in the next pericope [John 2:1-11], John 1:51 with its <i>opesesthe ton ouranon aneô[i]gota ktl</I> which, if taken literally, does not seem to be fulfilled in the Fourth Gospel, seems to interrupt the smooth sequence of John 1:50 and John 2:1-11...The reason why the sentence in John 1:51 is begun with a singular (<i>autô[i]</I>) is to show the continuity with Jesus’ conversation with Nathanael, whereas the plural (<i>hymim</I> and <i>opesthe</I>) indicates the wider applicability of Jesus’ promise to all the disciples who have begun to believe in him. (Mlakuzhyil, <i>The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel</i>, 49-50)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.eastern.edu/academics/programs/christian-studies-department/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kenneth H. Maahs</a> (b. 1940) justifies:
<blockquote>That he is being used by a John as a stand-in to represent all future believers in Jesus (Stephen S. Smalley [b. 1931], 94) is further hinted in John 1:51. Here the phrase, “he said to him,” which in context can only mean Nathanael, is followed by two plural pronouns, i.e., <i>you</I>, plural. Suddenly, Nathanael is treated as if he were a conduit through which a plurality of people is being addressed. Without doubt, the disciples are the immediate reference of the plural but perhaps not the only allusion John intends. This switch, from the singular “him” to the plural “you,” suggests that Nathanael stands not only for true Israel, i.e., the true circumcision (Romans 2:25-29), but also the true people of God known as the Christian Church (Philippians 3:3; I Peter 9-10). Indeed, a much larger circle of believers is being addressed through the person of Nathanael, including all the faithful readers of this Gospel. And like him, true Christians always see Jesus as John 1:51 notes, the place where heaven and earth meet, for they recognize Jesus as Nathanael did in John 1:49, “You are the King of Israel.” This introduction of Nathanael to the Messiah is, in fact, the state mission of the Baptist’s ministry, ie., “...that he might be revealed to Israel” (John 1:31). (Maahs, <i>The John You Never Knew: Decoding the Fourth Gospel</I>, 53)</blockquote>
<a href=http://arts.uottawa.ca/cla-srs/en/people/reinhartz-adele STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Adele Reinhartz</a> (b. 1953) applies:
<blockquote>Readers are invited to play a role like that of Peter and Nathanael or the Samaritans or the Greeks: to believe and follow Jesus even though their experience of Jesus is mediated through other, sometimes questionable witnesses. (<a href=http://www.ccuniversity.edu/graduate/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tom Thatcher</a> [b. 1967] and <a href=http://users.drew.edu/smoore/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen D. Moore</a> [b. 1954], “Building Skycrapers on Toothpicks: The Literary-Critical Challenge to Historical Criticism”, <i>Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature</i>, 67)</blockquote>
Despite Nathanael’s progression, within John’s framework making a decision about Jesus is mandatory. <a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1928 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Beverly R. Gaventa</a> (b. 1948) detects:
<blockquote>The theme of accepting or rejecting Jesus occupies a place of significance in the Gospel of John, where the people Jesus encounters are provoked to make a judgment about him. They must decide for him or against him. John has little tolerance for refusal or unwillingness to make a decision...Nathanael’s move from skeptical rejection to affirmation of faith separates him from those who wish to occupy some nonexistent middle ground. (<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=2 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggeman</a> [b. 1933], <a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=3 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Charles B. Cousar</a> [b. 1933], Gaventa and <a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=14 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James D. Newsome</a> [b. 1931], <i>Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV–Year B</I>, 113)</blockquote>
Nathanael’s encounter with Christ reminds all who encounter Jesus that they should carefully consider their response. But respond they must.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why is Jesus’ approach effective; why does it convince Nathanael (John 1:47-51)? What does the exchange between Jesus and Nathanael reveal about Jesus? When have you clicked with someone you only recently met? Should Nathanael be viewed as the model disciple? Why do you believe what you believe; on what evidence do you profess Jesus? How have you responded to Jesus?</font>
<blockquote>“‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile’ [John 1:47], Jesus says to Nathanael before Nathanael has found a tongue to say anything to him; and we picture this Nathanael standing there in all his guilelessness with mud on his shoes and his jaw hanging loose before he finally, whispers it, I suspect, ‘Rabbi, you are the son of God! You are the King of Israel!’ [John 1:49] And I picture you and me standing there too, not guileless by a long shot if you’re anything like me, but full of all that the world has filed us with—and that we have filled the world with—in the way of disillusion and doubt and self-seeking and love and fear and deceit and hope and everything else that makes us, each in our own unrepeatable way, human.” – <a href=http://www.frederickbuechner.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frederick Buechner</a> (b. 1926), “Delay”, <i>Secrets in the Dark: A Life in Sermons</I>, p. 111</blockquote>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-70166629744567795242014-08-21T15:00:00.000-07:002014-08-21T15:00:00.819-07:00Moses: 120 Years Young (Deuteronomy 34:7)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rswUHLYGi2g/U_TCrQ6Xu-I/AAAAAAAAI6o/nf9_Dbb1h7U/s1600/MosesRaeChichilnitsky.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242.667" width="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rswUHLYGi2g/U_TCrQ6Xu-I/AAAAAAAAI6o/nf9_Dbb1h7U/s320/MosesRaeChichilnitsky.jpg" /></a></div><b>How old was Moses when he died? 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7)</b>
<p>Israel’s renowned liberator, Moses, dies alone with God high atop Mount Nebo (Deuteronomy 34:1-8). Though he will not accompany his nation into the Promised Land, he spends the last moments of his earthly life scanning the region with God’s assurance that it will be given to his descendants (Deuteronomy 34:1-4).
<p>Moses lives to the age of 120 (Deuteronomy 34:7). Despite his advanced years, the text is clear that Moses does not succumb to old age.
<blockquote>Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated. (Deuteronomy 34:7 NASB)</blockquote>
Moses does not endure the diminished capacity that invariably comes with age (Deuteronomy 34:7). Even when he dies at the age of 120, he’s still got it!
<p><a href=http://www.renewalradio.com/albums/album_image/2785728/813864.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gene A. Getz</a> (b. 1932) applauds:
<blockquote>Moses had begun his career in Israel as a very strong man, and even though he endured unusual stress, he ended his life on earth well-preserved [Deuteronomy 34:7]—a great tribute to his trust and confidence in God and an even greater tribute to the Lord’s loving care and concern for His friend. (Getz, <i>Moses: Freeing Yourself to Know God</I>, 174)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1949&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dennis T. Olson</a> (b. 1954) supports:
<blockquote>Moses remains exceptionally strong and healthy: “His sight was unimpaired and his vigor had not abated” (Deuteronomy 34:7). Unlike the ancestor Isaac, whose eyes were dim in his old age (Genesis 27:1), Moses is able to see clearly the land that God has showed him [Deuteronomy 34:4]. Moreover, Moses’ “vigor” remains strong. The word for “vigor” is rare in Hebrew but is associated with the fresh, moist property of young trees and fresh fruit. At 120, Moses remains strong, young and supple. These claims about Moses’ extraordinary strength and youthfulness are common legendary motifs associated with heroes in ancient literature. (Olson, <i>Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading</I>, 167-68)</blockquote>
<p>Moses is characterized as the picture of health throughout his life. <a href=http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/religion/facultystaff/member.htm?faculty=danny_mathews STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Danny Mathews</a> observes:
<blockquote>The canonical presentation of Moses begins and ends with reference to the appearance and health of Moses. At his birth, he is described as “beautiful (מוב; Exodus 2:2). Upon his death, Moses “was one hundred and twenty years old...his sight was unimpaired and his vigor had not abated” (Deuteronomy 34:7). Here Moses is presented as one in perfect health on the day of his death who dies rather at “the Lord’s command” (Deuteronomy 34:5). (Mathews, <i>Royal Motifs in the Pentateuchal Portrayal of Moses</I>, 48-49)</blockquote>
Some have seen a discrepancy in the narrator’s evaluation of Moses’ health and his own personal assessment presented three chapters earlier (Deuteronomy 31:2, 34:7).
<p><a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1949&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dennis T. Olson</a> (b. 1954) acknowledges:
<blockquote>This heroic depiction of Moses [Deuteronomy 34:7] seems to contradict the portrait of Moses as feeble and weak in Deuteronomy 31:2: “I am now one hundred twenty years old. I am no longer able to get about.” While the contradictions may be explained away as coming from two different sources, their presence together in the final form of Deuteronomy suggests a meaningful tension in the portraiture of Moses. Moses is heroic and legendary and at the same time subject to the limits and weaknesses of all human beings. The same dialectic is at work in the juxtaposition of the stress of the inevitable reality of Moses’ death on the one hand (Deuteronomy 34:16) and on the undiminished vigor and sight of the heroic Moses on the other (Deuteronomy 34:7). (Olson, <i>Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading</I>, 168)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.btsr.edu/about/staff-faculty/mark-edward-biddle/meet-dr-mark-biddle/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Mark E. Biddle</a> (b. 1957) evaluates:
<blockquote>Moses’ admission (Deuteronomy 31:2) that, at 120 years of age, he could “no longer go out or come in,” sounds like a description of geriatric infirmity. If so, it contradicts the claim (Deuteronomy 34:7) that at the time of his death Moses’ eyesight was still good and he was still vigorous. Contrasts such as this prompt modern scholars to hypothesize multiple traditions or editorial processes. Rabbinic scholars, on the other hand, regarded such infelicities as indicators of some subtlety...The late medieval Jewish commentator Nachmanides [1194-1270], for example, assumed that the great Moses would have been in remarkable health to the end. The interpretive problem, then, is Moses’ apparent misrepresentation in Deuteronomy 31:2. Nachmanides suggested a psychological motivation for Moses’ white lie; Moses’ statement reveals his pastoral concern for the people who were about to be deprived of the only leader they have ever known: “he told them this in order to comfort them”; that is, so they could find some rationale for Moses’ passing...The Talmud (Sotah 13b) harmonizes the two statements by postulating that Deuteronomy 31:2 refers to Moses’ mental condition while Deuteronomy 34:7 refers to his physical condition. It explains that “This [Deuteronomy 31:2] teaches us that the well-springs of wisdom were stopped for him.” (Biddle, <i>Deuteronomy (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)</I>, 455)</blockquote>
Moses must be in relatively good physical condition as he can climb the mountain (Deuteronomy 34:1) and his eyes are strong enough to see the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 34:2, 4).
<p>Moses’ age and health (Deuteronomy 34:7) are often seen as emblematic of divine blessing, comparable to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief in the incorruptibility of the saints.
<p>Eugene E. Carpenter (1943-2012) informs:
<blockquote>Old age was a blessing from the gods in the thinking of the ancient Near East. The kings before the flood in the Sumerian King List were attributed heroic lives of thousands of years. The age of one hundred and ten represented a fulfilled life in Egypt. Ramesses II [1303-1213 BCE] lived to be about ninety. Moses reaches the biblical ideal of one hundred and twenty years (Genesis 6:3; cf. Genesis 50:26). (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary</I>, 513)</blockquote>
Some have viewed Moses’ 120 year life span as an approximation (Deuteronomy 34:7). Pierson Parker (1905-1995) and Henry Herbert Shires (1886-1961) consider:
<blockquote>It is difficult to know whether or not we should take this tradition at face value. In rough computation Israel frequently assumed a generation to be roughly forty years (cf. the time spent in the wilderness [Deuteronomy 2:7], i.e., a generation). Moses’ age as here given is simply thrice forty years, which may mean nothing more than that he was an old man who had seen grandchildren grow to maturity. (Parker and Shires, <i>Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (The Interpreter’s Bible)</I>, 511)</blockquote>
Ian Cairns (1930-2000) supplements:
<blockquote>Moses’ age is 120 years (Deuteronomy 31:2; cf. Deuteronomy 34:7). In the historical framework of the Deuteronomistic history, “forty years” stands for a complete generation (e.g., Judges 3:11, 5:31b), or for the time in office of a great leader — Eli, David, Solomon, Joash, and Moses himself (e.g., Deuteronomy 2:7)...That Moses’ life span is precisely three times forty years may be symbolic of his preeminence. (Cairns, <i>Deuteronomy: Word and Presence (International Theological Commentary)</I>, 271)</blockquote>
There is meaning attached to the number 120. Gary Harlan Hall (b. 1941) footnotes:
<blockquote>There is probably some symbolism at work here. The ideal age in Egypt was 110, the age of Joseph at his death (Genesis 50:26). In ancient Syria the ideal age was 120 (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.missouristate.edu/relst/victormatthews.aspx STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Victor H. Matthews</a> [b. 1950], <i>Genesis–Deuteronomy</I>, p. 265). In the Old Testament 120 years was the limit to life after the flood (Genesis 6:3). Moses’ full life of service had been under the careful watch of God and was now complete. In the Old Testament forty was the number that signaled a full and complete period of service (Eli – I Samuel 4:18; David – II Samuel 5:4; Solomon – I Kings 2:11; Joash – II Kings 12:1) or a full generation (Judges 3:11, 5:31b, 8:28). Moses’ life spanned three such periods. (Hall, <I>Deuteronomy (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 453)</blockquote>
J.A. Thompson (1913-2002) contemplates:
<blockquote>The age of Moses is given as <i>a hundred and twenty years</I> (Deuteronomy 34:7; <i>cf</I>. Exodus 7:7). The significance of the figure is not clear. In Egyptian literature 110 years was the life-span of a wise man and numerous examples are known. The fact that Moses’ life was ten years longer may be a device to express Moses’ superiority over the wise man of Egypt. Again, the age 120 is three times forty (<i>cf</I>. the time spent in the wilderness, Deuteronomy 2:7) and may well denote three generations. In any case Moses was an old man who had seen his grandchildren grow to maturity. (Thompson, <i>Deuteronomy (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries)</I>, 290)</blockquote>
Jack R. Lundbom (b. 1939) adds:
<blockquote>Moses is the only person in the Bible to achieve the ideal life span set forth in Genesis 6:3...A life span of 120 years occurs in the ancient Sumerian folktale “Enlil and Namzitarra” (lines 23-24), which speaks of the uselessness of accumulating wealth when life is so short; you die and can take nothing to the grave (Jacob Klein [b. 1934] 1990). In Egyptian literature the ideal life span is 110 years (<i>Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament</I>, 414 n 33; cf. Genesis 50:26, where Joseph’s age at the time of his death in Egypt is 110 years). Joshua, too dies at 110 years (Joshua 24:29). Psalm 90:10 puts the normal lifespan at 70, perhaps 80. (Lundbom, <i>Deuteronomy: A Commentary</I>, 829)</blockquote>
Moses’ advanced age is certainly an anomaly. <a href=https://twu.ca/directory/faculty/jim-scott.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James M. Scott</a> (b. 1955) surveys:
<blockquote>If, as we have seen, Moses died at 120 years of age (less than three jubilees) [Deuteronomy 34:7], then the death of Moses on the verge of entering the Land marks the end of an era, since human longevity thereafter drops to below two jubilees. This corresponds to the fact that outside of the patriarchal narrative in Genesis, only four individuals in the Old Testament are said to have lived beyond 100 years of age: Moses (120 years [Deuteronomy 34:7]), Joshua (110 years [Joshua 24:29]), Job (140 years [Job 42:16]), and the high priest Jehoiada (130 years [II Chronicles 24:15]). (Scott, <i>On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees</I>, 114)</blockquote>
Jewish tradition advances that Moses is the first of four significant figures who die at the landmark age of 120. The Midrash Sifre (Deuteronomy 34.7 §357.14) records:
<blockquote>He [Moses] is one of four who died at the age of one hundred twenty years. These are they: Moses, Hillel the Eder [110 BCE-7CE], Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai [30 BCE-90 CE], and Rabbi Aqiba [40-137]. Moses spent forty years in Egypt, forty years in Midian, and forty years as sustainer of Israel. Hillel the Elder emigrated from Babylonia at the age of forty years, served as disciple of sages for forty years, and spent forty years as sustainer of Israel. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai spent forty years in trade, served as disciple of sages for forty years, and spent forty years as sustainer of Israel. Rabbi Aquiba studied Torah at the age of forty years, served as disciple of sages for forty years, and spent forty years as sustainer of Israel. There are six pairs who lived the same length of time: Rebecca and Cheetah, Levi and Amam, Joseph and Joshua, Samuel and Solomon, Moses and Hillel the Elder, and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and Rabbi Aquiba. (<a href=http://www.jacobneusner.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jacob Neusner</a> [b. 1932], <i>A Theological Commentary to the Midrash: Sifré to Numbers and Sifré to Deuteronomy</I>, 187)</blockquote>
At the time of his death, Moses is one hundred twenty years young (Deuteronomy 34:7). Despite his many years, he is still vigorous. This detail adds an element of tragedy to his death.
<p><a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/emerrill/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene H. Merrill</a> (b. 1934) laments:
<blockquote>That Moses’ death was premature, even though he was 120 years old, is clear from the assessment that “his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone” (Deuteronomy 34:7). In other words, he did not fail to enter Canaan because he died, but he died because he failed to enter Canaan [Numbers 20:12]. (Merrill, <i>Deuteronomy (New American Commentary)</I>, 453-54)</blockquote>
George W. Coats (1936-2006) analyzes:
<blockquote>At this critical point in the heroic story, intimacy between the hero and God is apparent. But in the death away from the people, intimacy between hero and people is broken. In the past he also belonged to his people. Now his people are absent. The death of the hero is thus typically tragic: ‘No man knows the place of his burial to this day’ [Deuteronomy 34:6]. Deuteronomy 34:7 heightens the tragedy. Moses was one hundred twenty years old. That age is the time for death (contrast Deuteronomy 31:1). But for Moses the vigor of his heroic life remained. ‘His eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated.’ He could have continued his leadership. He was in physical form if not in chronological age a young man. And he left his people when he would have still been able to lead them. (Coats, <i>Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God</I>, 152)</blockquote>
Despite Moses’ premature death prohibiting him from entering the Promised Land, he never experiences poor health and is permitted to inspect the region while imagining a better life for his people given divine assurance that his efforts have not been in vain (Deuteronomy 34:1-4). Deuteronomy 34:7 provides a fitting epitaph for the revered leader .
<p><font color="#66CD00">What does Deuteronomy’s epitaph convey about Moses (Deuteronomy 34:7)? How do you picture Moses, as a vigorous mountain man or a decrepit lawgiver; which is more accurate? How important is vitality to a leader’s credibility? What do you think Moses felt as he inspected the Promised Land, hope or regret (Deuteronomy 34:1-4); is this viewing a blessing or a curse? Who have you known who experienced good health even well advanced in years; who aged best? How long would you like to live?</font>
<p>Moses’ 120-year life can be divided neatly into three parts. Gary Harlan Hall (b. 1941) delineates:
<blockquote>Moses was a <b>hundred and twenty years old</b> [Deuteronomy 34:7]. This marked the end of the third cycle of his life and rounded off his service to God. Moses was forty wen he fled Egypt (Acts 7:23), eighty at the time of the Exodus (cf. Deuteronomy 2:7), and now 120. Now at the end of the third cycle he was no longer able to carry out his leadership functions. The end had come for Moses not because of deteriorating health (see Deuteronomy 34:7), but because his role in God’s plan was at an end. A new task called for new leadership. (Hall, <I>Deuteronomy (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 453-54)</blockquote>
Though Moses’ life has three notable forty year phases, he is primarily remembered for what he achieved during its final chapter (Deuteronomy 2:7, 34:7); Israel’s renowned leader saves his best for last. In a very real sense Moses’ life begins at eighty (Exodus 7:7). Moses’ age provides hope that it is never too late to serve God. And to do so well.
<p><font color="#66CD00">How did the first phases of Moses’ life prepare him for its final chapter? How would you divide your life into eras? Who do you know who was most productive during the last leg of their life’s race? What do you want to do in the final chapter of your life? What would you do if you knew that you were living it now?</font>
<p>“Sometimes, the embers are better than the campfire. It’s strange, but it’s true.” - <a href=http://stephenking.com/>Stephen King</a> (b. 1947), <i>The Green Mile: The Complete Serial Novel</i>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-45113625295378021772014-08-13T15:00:00.000-07:002014-08-13T15:00:01.802-07:00Don’t Act You Age! (I Timothy 4:12)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oSwFs5Tu4ic/U-rcgwUo3RI/AAAAAAAAI6U/OBNPd05CBPc/s1600/TimothyIcon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265.333" width="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oSwFs5Tu4ic/U-rcgwUo3RI/AAAAAAAAI6U/OBNPd05CBPc/s320/TimothyIcon.jpg" /></a></div><b>Who does Paul tell not to let anyone despise his youth? Timothy (I Timothy 4:12)</b>
<p>First Timothy is a letter comprised of ministerial advice from a mentor, Paul, to his protégé, Timothy (I Timothy 1:1-2). Given this content, it is one of three New Testament writings grouped as the Pastoral Epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus). One of the issues addressed is that of age discrimination as Paul instructs Timothy not to let anyone discount him on account of his youth (I Timothy 4:12).
<blockquote>Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. (I Timothy 4:12 NASB)</blockquote>
From this account, some Christian organizations have incorporated the term “Young Timothy” into their programming. Paul’s protégé is forever linked with youth, perpetually frozen in time as a young pastor.
<p><a href=http://www.alphasigmanu.org/index.php/about-us/asn-board-and-staff/benjamin-fiore-board-faculty-adviser/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Benjamin Fiore</a> (b. 1943) discerns:
<blockquote>II Timothy suggests the same youthfulness in mentioning his mother and grandmother at II Timothy 1:5, the threat of youthful passions at II Timothy 2:22, Timothy’s education, his teachers, and his childhood at II Timothy 3:14-15. In the letters’ concern for preserving the authentic Pauline tradition, Timothy represents the next generation. (Fiore, <i>The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 95)</blockquote>
Few biographical details emerge within First Timothy regarding the letter’s recipient. Elsa Tamez (b. 1950) compiles:
<blockquote>An important figure is Timothy, described as a youth (I Timothy 4:12) ordained by the elders (I Timothy 4:14, 1:18) with stomach problems (I Timothy 5:23), who has the task of easing through the instructions sent to him. (Tamez, <i>Struggles for Power in Early Christianity: A Study of the First Letter to Timothy</I>, xxiii-xxiv)</blockquote>
The admonition regarding Timothy’s age (I Timothy 4:12) does not seem to conform to the rest of the composite sketch First Timothy paints. <a href=http://faculty.smu.edu/jbassler/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jouette M. Bassler</a> (b. 1942) recognizes:
<blockquote>The reference to despising Timothy’s youth [I Timothy 4:12] comes somewhat as a surprise, for the letter has thus far projected an image of him as a mature, responsible church leader. It may simply be one of the numerous personal references that increase the verisimilitude of these letters (see, e.g., I Timothy 1:3, 6:12; II Timothy 1:5). Timothy was known to have been Paul’s younger coworker (Philippians 2:22) and Paul himself had instructed the Corinthian church not to let anyone “despise” him (I Corinthians 16:10-11), though he did not link this problem to Timothy’s age. On the other hand, the words may reflect a difficult issue that the church faced in its early years. The bishops and deacons, unlike the elders...did not have implicit or explicit age requirements (I Timothy 3:1-13). The “natural” subordinate relationship of youth to age could thus be overturned by the appointment of a youthful church member to one of these leadership positions...It was just the sort of situation...that led Ignatius of Antioch [35-98] to admonish the church in Magnesia (Asia Minor) in the early decades of the second century “not to presume on the youth of the bishop, but to render him all respect” (Ignatius, <i>Epistle to the Magnesians</I> 3.1). Within I Timothy, however, the reference to Timothy’s youth seems to serve a more literary function, for it anticipates the next section where issues related to groups defined (in large part) by age are addressed. There the natural deference of youth to age is generally upheld (I Timothy 5:1-2) and while older widows are honored (I Timothy 5:9), younger ones are viewed as dangerously flighty (I Timothy 5:11). At the same time, however, “elders” are not beyond rebuke (I Timothy 5:19-20) and, as this verse [I Timothy 4:12] signals, leadership categories can supersede age categories in defining the social order of the church (I Timothy 5:22). (Bassler, <i>1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 86)</blockquote>
It is not known whether Timothy has actually experienced criticism regarding his age or if his mentor merely anticipates it (I Timothy 4:12). <a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) connects:
<blockquote>Paul apparently thought Timothy would encounter the same sort of obstacle he anticipated in the Corinthian church. Although the mandate dimension of this letter (written to Timothy but also for the church [I Timothy 1:1, 6:21) differs from that of I Corinthians (written directly to the church [I Corinthians 1:2]), the closest parallel to the kind of concern expressed here is I Corinthians 16:10-11...The issue of Timothy’s relative youth is not specifically mentioned in I Corinthians 16:10-11, but the possibility that the Corinthian church would scorn or despise him if he were sent in Paul’s place is paralleled in this text in the term “to look down upon” (cf. Titus 2:15). (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 313-14)</blockquote>
It seems unlikely that the author would supply the church a reason to denigrate his charge if it is not already an issue. Doing so might create a problem that does not exist. Thus, in all likelihood, in this instance, age is an issue for Timothy.
<p>Timothy is not to be disregarded because of his youth (I Timothy 4:12). The epistle uses the Greek verb <i>kataphronéō</I> which is translated “despise” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “look down on” (NASB, NIV), “make fun of” (CEV), “put...down” (MSG) or “think less of” (NLT). J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997) renders the word “underrate” (Kelly, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (Black’s New Testament Commentary)</i>, 103).
<p>The term is forceful. <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) probes:
<blockquote>καταφρονειν, “to despise, treat contemptuously,” can be a strong word, denoting disgust and even hatred. Jesus said that no one can serve two masters; he will be devoted to and love one, and hate (μισειν) and despise (καταφρονειν) the other (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). Jesus also says not to despise little children (Matthew 18:10). To the rich Corinthians who were abusing the Lord’s Supper Paul says that by doing so they are despising the church and humiliating the poor (I Corinthians 11:22). Peter describes those who “indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (II Peter 2:10). The only other occurrence of the word in the Pastoral Epistles is when Paul tells slaves not to despise their masters because they are Christians (I Timothy 6:2), although καταφρονειν does occur as a variant for περιφρονειν where Paul tells Titus not to let anyone disregard or despise him (Titus 2:15). The strong connotation that καταφρονειν carries helps to explain why throughout the Pastoral Epistles Paul instructs Timothy on issues that Timothy already knows. Since Timothy was meeting extreme opposition, being ignored because of his age, this epistle must carry the apostle’s full authority and transfer that authority to Timothy in the eyes of the Ephesians. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 258)</blockquote>
Jerome D. Quinn (1927-1988) and William C. Wacker (b. 1951) support:
<blockquote>In this letter, “disdain” translates the verb <i>kataphroneitō</I> (contrast the <i>periphroneitō</I> of Titus 2:15 and Jerome [347-420]’s comment in <i>Titum</I> [<i>Patrologia Latina</I> 26.589-90], who says the <i>kata</I>- compound denotes contempt in its proper sense, as when a martyr despises and scorns all the torments inflicted in him as of no account). In the eight other New Testament uses, Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (<i>Synopsis of the Four Gospels</I> §224) as well as Matthew 18:10 (in a context of leadership, a little child, and greatness!) have the verb refer to a person, and in the first examples cited, to “masters” (<i>kyriois</I>), as in I Timothy 6:2...it refers to “masters” (<i>despotas</I>). The uses in Romans 2:4 (of the riches of God’s goodness and I Corinthians 11:22 (the churches of God) are somewhat different, as are Hebrews 12:2 (Christ “despising the shame” of the cross) and II Peter 2:10 (persons despising the lordship or rule of authority of Christ? See Carl Schneider [1900-1977], <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</I> 3.632-33). Ignatius of Antioch [35-98]’s <i>Epistle to the Smyrnaeans</I> uses the verb of Peter and those with him who saw the risen Jesus and thereafter “despised even death” (<i>kai thanatou katephronēsan</I>). The three uses in The Shepherd of Hermas, similarly, do not have a personal object (<i>Mandate</I> 7.2 [but note the passive]; 9.10; and 10.3.1). (Quinn and Wacker, <i>The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Eerdmans Critical Commentary)</I>, 382)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.fresno.edu/sites/default/files/hiebert-d-edmond.pdf STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D. Edmond Hiebert</a> (1910-1995) interprets:
<blockquote>The verb “connotes that the contempt felt in the mind is displayed in injurious action” (Newport J.D. White [1860-1936]). He is not to allow them to push him around because of his youth. (Hiebert, <i>First Timothy (Everyman’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 85)</blockquote>
Timothy’s age is underscored grammatically (I Timothy 4:12). <a href=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/academics/view-faculty-member.cfm?faculty_id=15890&grp_id=8946 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Aida Besançon Spencer</a> (b. 1947) acquaints:
<blockquote>The cause (<b>your youth</b>) of the negative opinion is emphasized by being placed before the verb (<b>despise</b>) [I Timothy 4:12]. (Spencer, <i>1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary)</I>, 113)</blockquote>
Timothy’s issue is his “youth” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, RSV), that he is “young” (CEV, MSG, NIV, NLT, NRSV), or that he exhibits “youthfulness” (NASB). The term encompasses a broad range of ages.
<p><a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) researches:
<blockquote>νεότης, “youth,” occurs in the New Testament elsewhere only in the phrase “since my youth” [Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21; Acts 26:4]. The rich young ruler says that he obeyed the commands since his youth (Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21), and Paul speaks of “my manner of life from my youth [ἐκ νεότητος] spent from the beginning [ἀπ’ ἀρχης] among my own nation” (Acts 26:4). Paul was a youth when Stephen was stoned (cognate νεανίας: Acts 7:58; cf. Acts 20:9 [Eutychus]; Acts 23:17 [Paul’s nephew]; cf. also the cognate νεανίσκος). The phrase ἐκ/ἀπὸ νεότητος, “from youth upwards,” is common in extrabiblical Greek (James Hope Moulton [1863-1917] and George Milligan [1860-1934], 424). The <i>Didache</I> says that “from their youth thou shalt teach them [i.e., sons and daughters] the fear of God” (4:9). These passages show that νεότης can refer to a very young person. Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887], Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] and Roderick McKenze [1897-1937] (1170), moreover cite several references where νεότης refers to young men of military or athletic age (e.g. Pindar [522-443 BCE] <i>Isthmian Odes</I> 8[7].75; Herodotus [484-425 BCE] 4.3; 9.12; Thucydides [460-395 BCE] 2.8, 20). E.K. Simpson [b. 1873] (69) cites several secular references: Aulus Gellius [125-180] (10.28) says soldiers are <i>iuniores</I> “up to forty-six”’ Josephus [37-100] notes that although Antonia “was still a young woman,” she refused to marry; he calls Agrippa “youthful” when he was almost forty (<i>Antiquities</I> 18.6§§143-239); in describing Flaminius Polybius says, “he was quite young, not being over thirty” (νέος ἡν κομιδη πλείω γὰρ των τριάκοντ’ ἐτων οὐκ εἱχε; <i>The Histories</I> 18.12.5; <a href=http://www.hup.harvard.edu/collection.php?cpk=1031>Loeb Classical Library</a> translation). Irenaeus [130-202] (<i>Adversus Haereses</I> 2.22.5) preserves a fragment from <i>The Relics of the Elders</I> that states “But that the age of thirty years is the prime of a young man’s ability, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, every one will allow” (translation J.B. Lightfoot [1828-1889], <i>Apostolic Fathers</I>, 554). (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 258)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gpts.edu/faculty/george_knight.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George W. Knight, III</a> (b. 1931) bounds:
<blockquote>νεότης (Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21; Acts 26:4) and the related adjective νέος are used of “children, youths, and of men at least as old as 30” (Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887], Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] and Roderick McKenzie [1897-1937] s.v. νέος). The phrase “wife of your youth” (ἐκ νεότητος σου) is used in the Septuagint (Proverbs 5:18; Malachi 2:14) and shows the second category of usage. The third category extends into and somewhat beyond the age of thirty and is evidenced by the following: Polybius [200-118 BCE] (18.12.5) speaks of Flaminius as “young” because he is only thirty, and Irenaeus [130-202] (<i>Adversus Haereses</I> 2.22.5) explicitly says that one could be called “young” up to forty (cf. <a href=https://www.tcd.ie/provost/history/former-provosts/jh_bernard.php>John Henry Bernard</a> [1860-1927], E.K. Simpson [b. 1873], JN.D. Kelly [1909-1997])...Luke called Paul a “young man” (Acts 7:58) when he was of the same age range as Timothy is now. Timothy’s age, in his thirties (the estimate most would agree on), might seem to be a handicap in the Ephesian community, where some of the other believers and other elders are older. (Knight, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</i>, 205)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) adds:
<blockquote>The cognate νεόφυτος, “neophyte,” “new convert” is found in the prohibition that neophytes should not be deacons (I Timothy 3:6), but this refers to spiritual and not physical age. William Mitchell Ramsay [1851-1939] says that the cognate νέος, “new,” was used of fully grown men of military age (<i>The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day</I> [<a href=http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">London</a>: <a href=https://www.hodder.co.uk STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Hodder & Stoughton</a>, 1913] 41; cited in James Hope Moulton [1863-1917] and George Milligan [1860-1934], 424). Ramsay also mentions the Νέοι, a social club of young men over twenty years old as distinct from the ’Έηβοι (adolescents) and the Γερουσία (“Council of Elders”; “Senate”; “Sanhedrin”; <i>Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia</I>, 2 volumes [<a href=http://www.oxford.gov.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Oxford</a>: Clarendon, 1895, 1897] 1:110-11; cited in Moulton and Milligan, 24). Moulton and Milligan (424) cite a passage in which the νέοι are later described as ἀνδρων, “men” (Wilhelm Dittenberger [1840-1906], <i>Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum</I>, 524 [second century B.C.])...Irenaeus [130-202] (<i>Adversus Haereses</I> 2.22.5) says Jesus suffered when he was thirty [Luke 3:23], “being in fact still a young man.” While there is a problem in using cognates to define related words, the meaning of νέος supports the conclusion that Timothy was in his late twenties to mid thirties. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 259)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/academics/view-faculty-member.cfm?faculty_id=15890&grp_id=8946 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Aida Besançon Spencer</a> (b. 1947) contextualizes:
<blockquote>According to the <i>Mishnah</I>, twenty was the age to pursue a calling and thirty for authority (<i>Mishnah ‘Abot</I> 5:21). (Spencer, <i>1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary)</I>, 113)</blockquote>
William Victor Blacoe (b. 1954) augments:
<blockquote><b>Youth</b> (Greek <i>neotes</I> νεότης) means <i>newness</I> as respecting <i>youthfulness</I>. The Latin translation of this word is “adulescentiam” – from which the English word <I>adolescence</I> is derived. The word referred to “grown up military age, extending to the 40th year.” For example, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) used this Latin word to describe himself when he was 27 years of age; the word is also applied to Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) when he was 33 or 35 years of age. “We may therefore presume that Timothy was now between thirty and forty.” (Blacoe, <I>1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Understanding the New Testament)</I>, 74)</blockquote>
<a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) condenses:
<blockquote>Among the various Greek schemes (more or less detailed) for classifying age groups (e.g. Dio Chrysostom [40-120] 74.10; Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], <i>On the Creation</I> 105; cf. <i>On the Embassy to Gaius</I> 227), a more basic distinction between “young” and “old” existed that placed youth at the age of forty and under (e.g., Irenaeus [130-202], <i>Against Heresies</I> 2.22.5; see also Josephus [37-100], <i>Antiquities of the Jews</I> 18.197; cf. <i>I Clement</I> 21.6-8). See further I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], 239. (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 314)</blockquote>
It appears that forty was always the new forty as even in the ancient world this age denoted youth.
<p>The scope of the Greek allows for a Timothy that is older than a present-day literal reading might envision. Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) clarifies:
<blockquote>If, as is probable, Timothy was in his thirties, words such as “young” and “youth” [I Timothy 4:12, 5:1, 2, 11, 14] might give the contemporary reader the wrong impression, since we generally reserve these words for people in their teens and early twenties. (Liefeld, <i>1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 165)</blockquote>
Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) agrees:
<blockquote>We need not take Paul’s description of Timothy as “young” [I Timothy 4:12] to picture him as a teenager or a young adult in his early twenties. Acceptable estimates of Timothy’s age could easily place him between thirty and thirty-five years old. Some Christians in Ephesus could chafe at receiving instructions from a man even this young. (Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. [b. 1947], <i>1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary)</I>, 137-38)</blockquote>
Though it is impossible to determine Timothy’s age precisely, it has not deterred speculation. <a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff>Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) records scholarly estimates:
<blockquote>E.K. Simpson [b. 1873] (35-40 years old); Burton Scott Easton [1877-1950], 146 and Raymond F. Collins [b. 1935], 128 (20s); Joachim Jeremias [1900-1979], 34 (30s). (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 314)</blockquote>
In addition to linguistic clues, many have attempted to gage Timothy’s age by piecing together a timeline. <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) reconstructs:
<blockquote>Timothy started serving with Paul during the second missionary journey about A.D. 49 (Acts 16:1). Allowing for that journey, the third journey, the imprisonments (including the Roman one), and the time required for subsequent release and time spent in Ephesus (c. A.D. 62)...thirteen years or so had passed. Combined with the fact that Timothy must have been old enough in Acts 16 to have been an effective helper, this suggests that Timothy was now in his late twenties to mid thirties. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 258)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.depts.drew.edu/tsfac/toden/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Thomas C. Oden</a> (b. 1931) assumes:
<blockquote>“That Timothy must have been thirty to thirty-five is based on the date of his joining Paul (ca. 49-50) and the date of this letter (ca. 62-64)” (<a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/retired/gordon-d-fee>Gordon D. Fee</a> [b. 1934], p. 71). “Indeed this particular age [thirty] is stamped as full and complete by the mystery of Christ’s assumed manhood” (Jerome [347-420], Letters, LXXXII.8, p. 173). (Oden, <i>First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</i>, 126)</blockquote>
Dick France (1938-2012) concludes:
<blockquote>At the time of this letter Timothy must have been at least thirty, and it was ten or fifteen years since Paul had recruited him as his associate [Acts 16:1-3]. He was not the sort of ‘recent convert’ mentioned in I Timothy 3:6. But for all his experience he was still a ‘youth’ (I Timothy 4:12) in comparison with at least some of the ‘elders’ over whom he had responsibility, and in a culture which valued the wisdom of age he may well have found it difficult to maintain his authority; indeed some of the people whose teaching he had been appointed to oppose may well have used his age against him. (France, <i>Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer)</I>, 46)</blockquote>
Some of his parishioners have the impression that Timothy is too young (I Timothy 4:12). Though reality may not coincide with the perception, it is still a very real obstacle for the pastor.
<p>The designation of youth is subjective. What is young to some may be old to others. <A HREF=http://www.ovu.edu/base.cfm?page_id=2629 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">C. Michael Moss</a> (b. 1950) asserts:
<blockquote>Age is relative. The elders at Ephesus, as well as many members there, could very well look at Timothy as a young man. He might, after all, be the age of some of their children. (Moss, <i>1, 2 Timothy & Titus (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 92)</blockquote>
<a href=http://drjohnphillips.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Phillips</a> (1927-2010) illustrates:
<blockquote>Forty is considered old for most professional athletes, yet it is considered young for the chief executive of a corporate conglomerate and very youthful indeed for a president or prime minster. (Phillips, <i>Exploring the Pastoral Epistles: An Expository Commentary</I>, 127)</blockquote>
Noticeably, Timothy is young as compared to Paul. <a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) elucidates:
<blockquote>The words “let no one despise your youth” [I Timothy 4:12] (cf. Ignatius of Antioch [35-98] <i>Epistle to the Magnesians</I> 3:1) do not suggest that Timothy is either very young or a mere babe in the faith...By the time the present letter was written, Timothy was likely thirty-five or thirty-six, which certainly was young in comparison to Paul’s age. (Witherington, <i>Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John</I>, 257)</blockquote>
Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) adds:
<blockquote>The detail is consistent with the Pastor’s presentation of Timothy as Paul’s true son (I Timothy 1:2). Timothy is portrayed as a younger man to whom the ministry of Paul, the old man, has been entrusted. (Collins, <i>I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</I>, 128)</blockquote>
Timothy may also be younger than many of his parishioners. <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) understands:
<blockquote>Timothy was dealing with people whom Paul had personally evangelized many years earlier and who had been leaders in their church for some time. It would have been natural for them to have looked down on any younger person who was correcting them. There is no similar injunction to Titus, who was probably older than Timothy and did not have to deal with this particular problem. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 259)</blockquote>
<a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) considers:
<blockquote>The sense of the command, “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young [I Timothy 4:12],” may compare his age to Paul’s, or to that of older people in the church over whom he would exercise some delegated apostolic authority. Each possibility would apply, as well as the simple fact that he was standing in for Paul in a situation where anti-Pauline sentiments might have been on the increase. In any case, if the noun translated “youth, state of youthfulness” is a reference to an age group, Timothy would probably have been less than forty years old. Attempts at greater precision are speculative since we do not know his age at the time he was called. But the possibility that “youth” means here simply “younger than me” or “younger than the elders in the church” should not be ruled out. Either way, the parallel in I Corinthians 16:10-11 (Titus 2:15) suggests that Paul’s practice of dispatching coworkers authorized to act in his place (instructing, disciplining) meant putting them into very ticklish ministry situations. In this case, the explicit reference to Timothy’s youth adds the burden of crossing the cultural line of age veneration. (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 314)</blockquote>
If Timothy’s parishioners’ definition of youth is consistent with most, it simply means that the pastor is younger than them.
<p>Though the sentiment is often absent in contemporary American society, it is natural to venerate elders. <a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) compares:
<blockquote>For a similar description of youth being despised, see Diodorus Siculus [90-30 BCE] 17.7.1; Romans 2:4; I Corinthians 11:22; Ceslas Spicq [1901-1992], <i>Theological Lexicon of the New Testament</I> 2:280-84; Carl Schneider [1900-1977], <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</I> 3:631-32. The situation faced by Titus, which the similar command of Titus 2:15 addresses, may not be precisely that of youthfulness...Paul’s own insistence on the selection of older leaders (I Timothy 3:6) underlines the potential for disrespect in the case of the younger Timothy. For the veneration of age in Greco-Roman culture and Hellenistic Judaism, see Ceslas Spicq [1901-1992], 511-512. (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 314)</blockquote>
William Barclay (1907-1978) attends:
<blockquote>The Church generally liked its office-bearers to be people of maturity. The <i>Apostolic Canons</I> laid it down that a man was not to become a bishop until he was over fifty, for by then ‘he will be past youthful disorders’. Timothy was young in comparison with Paul, and there would be many who would watch him with a critical eye [I Timothy 4:12]. When the British politician the elder William Pitt [1708-1778] was making a speech in the <a href=http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">House of Commons</a> at the age of thirty-three, he said: ‘The atrocious crime of being a young man...I will neither attempt to palliate or deny.’ The Church has always regarded youth with a certain suspicion, and under that suspicion Timothy inevitably fell. (Barclay, <i>The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (New Daily Study Bible)</I>, 110)</blockquote>
Age’s twin is experience and the criticism against Timothy may reflect a perceived deficiency in this resource as well. <a href=http://spu.edu/academics/school-of-theology/seattle-pacific-seminary/seminary-faculty/wall-robert STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert W. Wall</a> (b. 1947) suggests:
<blockquote>To be sure, Timothy’s precise age cannot be determined, but perhaps his youthfulness [I Timothy 4:12] refers to a lack of work experience, especially when compared to the absent Paul or even to the elders of the congregation. The Roman world considered apprenticeship and field experience requirements of mature instruction; rather than a reference to chronological age, Paul’s exhortation may reflect concern for an incomplete or inadequate résumé for a congregational leader. The earlier catalogs of virtues were focused on what sort of person leads a sacred household rather than on expertise gained from experience, but even they assumed a level of real-world experience, since virtue is not formed in a vacuum. (Wall with <a href=https://www.spu.edu/academics/school-of-theology/seattle-pacific-seminary/seminary-faculty/steele-richard STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard B. Steele</a> [b. 1952], <i>1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary)</I>, 123)</blockquote>
In all likelihood Timothy has at least a decade of experience. As such, this criticism, if it exists, is more imagined than real.
<p>Timothy is not the first Biblical hero to be underestimated due to youth. Much to his chagrin, Goliath famously undervalues David (I Samuel 17:43-44) and pays for his miscalculation with his life ((I Samuel 17:1-54).
<p>Nor is Timothy the last to be castigated for his lack of years. The problem still persists into the present day. <a href=Thabiti M. Anyabwile STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Thabiti M. Anyabwile</a> (b. 1970) admits:
<blockquote>Some pastor search committees will not consider a man younger than age forty. Of course, that would have meant the end of Timothy’s candidacy, not to mention Jesus’s [Luke 3:23]. Then there are those committee members who will look at a young pastor and conclude, “He’s young but we’ll train him and fit him to our tastes.” There are also members of churches who disregard a pastor’s instruction because “he is so young and inexperienced.”...In a million ways youth can be despised. (Anyabwile, <i>Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons</i>, 131)</blockquote>
N.T. Wright (b. 1948) empathizes:
<blockquote>I Timothy 4:12 warns Timothy not to let anyone look down on him because he’s young; he must keep his nerve, and trust that God will be at work through him when he does what he’s been called to do. Some clergy feel the pressure of their youth, not least in the kind of parish where the average age of the congregation is twice their own. ‘We’ve been here in this church for fifty years,’ they seem to be saying, ‘and don’t you try to tell us what to think or do!’ But there are other pressures too, on clergy, not least because most of the time they are not directly responsible to anybody else; nobody is telling them to do these four things this morning, those five this afternoon, and to finish off the rest this evening. Rather, a generalized mass of possible tasks stares up at them from a crowded desk and a flashing answerphone. How many people, faced with all that, will have the courage to obey even the first of Paul’s instructions? (Wright, <i>Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters</I>, 51)</blockquote>
<p>Isaiah prophesies that a “a little child shall lead them.” (Isaiah 11:6 KJV) and, thankfully, there are many biblical examples of youthful leaders. <a href=http://waynerice.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Wayne Rice</a> (b. 1945) catalogs:
<blockquote>We have a treasure trove of biblical heroes to inspire teenagers who want to do something significant with their lives for God: Moses, Joseph, Samuel, Esther, David, even Jesus himself, who at age twelve declared “I must be about my father’s business [Luke 2:49].” King Josiah began his successful thirty-one year reign in Jerusalem when he was eight years old [II Kings 22:1; II Chronicles 34:1]. Joan of Arc [1412-1431] was only nineteen when she was martyred for her faith. There are many examples in history of teenagers who showed remarkable competence and courage as they assumed roles that day are more or less reserved exclusively for adults. And young people today are just as capable, if not more so. (Rice, <i>Reinventing Youth Ministry (Again): From Bells and Whistles to Flesh and Blood</I>, 45)</blockquote>
Though priests had a twenty-five year window between the ages of twenty-five to fifty to serve publicly, this did not prevent anyone from doing great things for God (Numbers 8:24-25). <a href=http://www.dougfields.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Doug Fields</a> (b. 1962) contends:
<blockquote>Jesus never said, “Take up your cross and follow me when you’re and adult.” The Bible is clearly devoid of any age requirement for serving. God shattered age limits with biblical heroes like David, Jeremiah, and Mary. A sign of a healthy church is one that helps all Christians, regardless of age, to discover their gifts and express them through serving in ministry. (Fields, <i>Purpose-driven Youth Ministry: 9 Essential Foundations for Healthy Growth</I>, 175)</blockquote>
The complaint against Timothy’s youth (I Timothy 4:12) may represent a real concern on the part of the congregation but it is equally possible that it is used for convenience to mask other perceived flaws. Timothy may be facing a problem that many do when following the founding pastor of a church. He finds himself in the unenviable position of following a legend. Regardless of skill level, this scenario presents its own unique obstacles.
<p>All pastorates come with their own intrinsic challenges. His age is just one of the many obstacles Timothy will have to overcome to adhere to his calling. Timothy may have problems, but according to Paul (and implicitly to God), however, his youthfulness is not one.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why would parishioners resent Timothy’s youth (I Timothy 4:12)? What are the limitations of the young? What should a young person be prohibited from attempting? What are the advantages to being young? How important is experience? How does your church view its youth; is discrimination against youth still an issue in churches? What constitutes young to you? When have young people successfully led organizations? Do you prefer your leaders to have discernible age? What is the youngest pastor you have encountered; did his or her age influence your perception? How young is too young to serve as pastor? Have you ever felt discriminated against because of your age? What can Timothy, and other young pastors, do to deflect criticism?</font>
<p>Timothy must not be intimated by the criticism as the stakes are too high. <a href=http://www.gpts.edu/faculty/george_knight.php STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George W. Knight, III</a> (b. 1931) assesses:
<blockquote>The admonition of the apostle is that Timothy not let this become a factor, since the apostolic instruction and admonition are at stake. (Knight, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</i>, 205)</blockquote>
Timothy must not only avoid falling prey to the criticism, he cannot believe it to be true. He cannot allow people tell him that he cannot do something which God has called him to do. Youth is not only not worthy of criticism, it is also no excuse for being for being ineffective.
<p><a href=https://www.stmarytx.edu/academics/humanities/undergraduate/theology/theology-faculty/george-t-montague-s-m-s-th-d/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George T. Montague</a> (b. 1929) presumes:
<blockquote>Timothy is to <b>command and teach these things</B> [I Timothy 4:11]. Conforming to the style of the advice-giving letter of elder to younger (like Pseudo-Isocrates to Demonicus), Paul repeats advice given before. It is likely that Timothy needs the boldness that comes from assurance of his authority. In light of his youth [I Timothy 4:12], he may well be intimidated by the older men in the community. (Montague, <i>First and Second Timothy, Titus (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)</I>, 99)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.anthonybrobinson.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Anthony B. Robinson</a> (b. 1948) and <a href=http://spu.edu/academics/school-of-theology/seattle-pacific-seminary/seminary-faculty/wall-robert>Robert W. Wall</a> (b. 1947) supplement:
<blockquote>Sometimes, but not always, such tentativeness is amplified by a particular personal characteristic that flies in the face of culturally established patterns of authority, where age (as in Timothy’s case [I Timothy 4:12]) or gender (in the case of some women in ministry). Such culturally established markers, Paul indicates, are not to be heeded, because the work and the way of life of the pastoral leader are what matters. (Robinson and Wall, <i>Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for a New Day</I>, 121)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/glenn.hinson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">E. Glenn Hinson</a> (b. 1931) pronounces:
<blockquote>Timothy, now in his thirties, should stop hiding behind the excuse, “I’m too young.” He should be an example of believers in all dimensions of Christian life—speech, conduct, faith or faithfulness and sexual purity [I Timothy 4:12]. A weighty expectation! (Watson E. Mills [b. 1939], <i>Mercer Commentary on the New Testament</i>, 1256)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.depts.drew.edu/tsfac/toden/>Thomas C. Oden</a> (b. 1931) advises:
<blockquote>The importance of the office of teaching is so great that the youthful pastor must learn rightly to resist those who might undercut or demean them solely on the basis of their younger age or limited experience (I Timothy 4:12). When thirty-year old pastors are called upon to guide and teach elders twice their age, they must keep in mind the firmness of their authorization [I Timothy 4:11]. The youth of pastors “will not be despised if they do not by youthful vanities and follies make themselves despicable (Matthew Henry [1662-1714], p. 821). (Oden, <i>First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</i>, 126)</blockquote>
The criticism against Timothy is especially problematic as the issue cannot be immediately resolved. Barring the magic of Hollywood as seen in movies like <i>Big</i> (1988) or <i>13 Going on 30</i> (2004), Timothy simply cannot age instantaneously. There are, however, ways in which Timothy can compensate for his youthfulness.
<p>Paul not only acknowledges the problem but also provides some advice as to how to solve it by counteracting the criticism (I Timothy 4:12). The solution is not in words, through public confrontation, but via deeds, providing a good example. Timothy should live a life above reproach.
<p>Timothy, like all pastors, is to be an “example” (ESV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “ensample” (ASV) to his flock (I Timothy 4:12). He is to practice what he preaches. Paul appeals to character which transcends age and credentialing.
<p><a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) evaluates:
<blockquote>“Let no one treat you contemptuously because of your youth, but be an example for the faithful in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” [I Timothy 4:12]. Charles J. Ellicott [1819-1905] translates: “Let the gravity of thy age supply the want of years” (61)...On the one hand, Timothy should not allow himself to be despised (cf. similar injunction in I Corinthians 16:11) while, at the same time, he must be a good example. Both sides of the coin are necessary for successful ministry. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 257)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) informs:
<blockquote>Timothy is called to be a <i>typos</I>, a “type” or “example” of faith in words, behavior, love, faithfulness and purity [I Timothy 4:12]. In short, he, like Paul...is to be a moral and theological exemplar of the gospel that he preaches, an embodiment of it. (Witherington, <i>Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John</I>, 258)</blockquote>
<a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) educates:
<blockquote>To overcome any liabilities associated with youth, Paul urges Timothy to become “an example for the believers” (Titus 2:7). The task of “modeling” was intrinsic both to formal and informal ancient education. Paul assumed this role in relation to Timothy (I Corinthians 4:17) and within the churches (Philippians 3:17; I Thessalonians 1:7; II Thessalonians 3:9), and in these letters to delegates, Timothy and Titus were to do the same (Titus 2:7). Elsewhere it was a responsibility to be taken up by believers in general (e.g., I Thessalonians 1:7), and expected of church leaders (I Peter 5:3). To be a model or set an example meant more than simply presenting a pattern that others were to mimic: “The more life is moulded by the word, the more it becomes <i>typos</i>, a model or mould.” It was a case of living out life as faith in the gospel had shaped it. (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 314-15)</blockquote>
In doing so, Timothy is to do as his mentor, Paul, has done. J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997) associates:
<blockquote>To offset the handicap of youth, Timothy is invited to <b>be an example to believers</b> [I Timothy 4:12]. This is a truly Pauline touch; the apostle expected the Christian leader to be a model to others (Philippians 3:7; II Thessalonians 3:9). (Kelly, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (Black’s New Testament Commentary)</i>, 104)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/academics/view-faculty-member.cfm?faculty_id=15890&grp_id=8946 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Aida Besançon Spencer</a> (b. 1947) details:
<blockquote>The manner of responding to negative opinions of his youth was not by speech (reprimanding such views) but by <b>example</b> [I Timothy 4:12]. A <i>typos</I> was a pattern or model “in conformity to which a thing must be made,” an archetype. Paul had already referred to himself as an “example” or prototype (<i>hypotypōsis</I>) of a sinner saved from punishment by Christ Jesus showing compassion toward him by forgiving him [I Timothy 1:16]. Paul has used Timothy as a model in other letters: with himself, of believers who persevere despite suffering and who work [Philippians 1:1, 3:11-19; II Thessalonians 3:7-12]. Paul had sent Timothy to Corinth as a model of someone who shares in Christ’s sufferings [I Corinthians 4:10-17]. (Spencer, <i>1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary)</I>, 113)</blockquote>
In the process of modeling right behavior, Timothy will prove his critics wrong. <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) follows:
<blockquote>On the one hand, Timothy is to let no one despise him because of his youth [I Timothy 4:12]. The parallel imperative (I Timothy 4:12b) suggests that the way to do this is to be such a good example that accusations have no credence. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 258)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.alphasigmanu.org/index.php/about-us/asn-board-and-staff/benjamin-fiore-board-faculty-adviser/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Benjamin Fiore</a> (b. 1943) bolsters:
<blockquote>Timothy can avoid scorn for his youth by not giving occasion for such scorn. Thus he is to demonstrate personal excellence and be exemplary in his ministry (I Timothy 4:12-16). He is also expected to avoid youthful passions (II Timothy 2:22), unsubstantiated accusations against elders (I Timothy 5:19), prejudice (I Timothy 5:21), and an imprudent selection of leaders (I Timothy 5:22). This advice to a young leader parallels that found in Isocrates [436-338 BCE], <i>Ad Nicocem</I> and <i>Demonicus</I> and in the kingship treatises of Plutarch [45-120] and Dio Chrysostom [40-120] . (Fiore, <i>The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 94)</blockquote>
William Barclay (1907-1978) approves:
<blockquote>The advice given to Timothy is the hardest to follow, and yet it was the only possible advice. It was that he must silence criticism by conduct. Plato [427-347 BCE] was once falsely accused of dishonourable conduct. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘we must live in such a way that all men will see that the charge is false.’ Verbal defences may not silence criticism; conduct will. (Barclay, <i>The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (New Daily Study Bible)</I>, 110)</blockquote>
Paul’s instruction still holds true; it is best to answer criticism with actions. <a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) affirms:
<blockquote>Nothing bridges the generation gap in the church like the spiritual maturity of the younger. At a more important level, nothing proves the veracity of the gospel as well as evidence of its life-changing power. (Towner, <i>1-2 Timothy & Titus (IVP New Testament Commentary)</I>, 109)</blockquote>
Paul is not just content to relay that Timothy ought be an example; he also lists five areas of emphasis (I Timothy 4:12). <a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) inventories:
<blockquote>Paul depicts this life by attaching a string of five short prepositional phrases enumerating five of its elements [I Timothy 4:12]. The first phrase, “in speech,” is thought by some to refer to the specific kind of speech involved in preaching or teaching (e.g., I Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9). But while this might be included in the sense of what one professes, alongside of “conduct,” the broader sense of “speech” is more likely. “Conduct,” that is, manner of life, how one lives, was a natural counterpart to “speech” in Greek and Jewish moral teaching. Together they encompassed most of the observable life, and especially for the teacher, the manner of life was to correspond to what was proposed. In Timothy’s case, coherence of speech and behavior was to command the respect of one assigned to represent the apostle and his teaching in the community...The next two qualities in effect repeat the more widely used “speech/conduct” model specifically in terms of Christian maturity. Paul frequently summed up authentic spirituality in terms of “faith” (=belief in God)...and “love” (=the outworking of faith in service.)...Added to this pair is the fifth phrase, “impurity.” In this context, the reference is either to the sexual purity (chastity) required especially of young men (I Timothy 5:2), or to purity of motives. Given the concern that Timothy not give grounds for his youth to be criticized, emphasis on the need for sexual probity is most fitting...Paul calls Timothy to display a balanced and authentic Christian lifestyle. It will not only bear the traditional marks of consistency (speech/conduct), but also the stamp of spiritual coherence (faith/love) from which the opponents had deviated in their teaching and behavior. Any lingering questions related to Timothy’s relative youth were finally to be laid to rest by his refusal to slip into unchaste tendencies of speech, conduct, or inappropriate interaction with members of the opposite sex [I Timothy 4:12]. (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 315-16)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/johnson.cfm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Luke Timothy Johnson</a> (b. 1943) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>If <i>anastrophē</I> [“conduct”] denotes behavior or way of life in general, these terms specify the qualities that Paul particularly wants to be modeled to the community [I Timothy 4:12]. We are not in the least surprised to find <i>pistis</I> [“faith”] and <i>agapē</I> [“love”], for these attitudes are the “goal of the commandment” that Timothy is to proclaim (I Timothy 4:5). More startling is the inclusion of “purity” (<i>hagneia</I>), which in the moral literature is frequently narrowed to sexual purity, or chastity (e.g., Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], <i>On Abraham</I> 98; <i>On the Contemplative Life</I> 68; Josephus [37-100], <i>Antiquities</I> 19:331). In Polycarp [69-155]’s <i>Philippians</I> 5:3, <i>hagneia</i> is among the first responsibilities of the young men. Is this another possible allusion to Timothy’s youth? (Johnson, <i>The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Anchor Bible)</I>, 252)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce J. Malina</a> (b. 1933) and John J. Pilch (b. 1936) correlate:
<blockquote>The five specific areas in which the leader is to set an example [I Timothy 4:12] correspond to the three symbolic body zones that characterize biblical perception of the human person: speech (mouth-ears), conduct (hands-feet), love (heart-eyes), faith (heart-eyes); and purity (hands-feet). <b>Three-Zone Personality</b>. When all three symbolic zones are mentioned, the author intends to describe a total, complete picture. In this instance, Timothy, that is, the local Jesus-group leader is to be totally perfect in all dimensions of human life and behavior. In this regard, Timothy represents an ideal rather than a real figure, the ideal leader. (Malina and Pilch, <i>Social-Science Commentary on the Deutero-Pauline Letters</i>, 129)</blockquote>
This list is not intended to be exhaustive but does highlight issues that would be especially relevant to a youth. Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) discusses:
<blockquote>The qualities in which Timothy is to excel are those in which youth is so often deficient [I Timothy 4:12]. Yet for that reason they would stand out more strikingly. It would become evident to the Christian believers that authority in the community is contingent on character, not on age. Every young man called to the ministry or any position of authority would do well to heed Paul’s five-fold enumeration here. The first two, <i>speech</I> and <i>life</I> (<i>i.e.</I> manner of life, or behaviour) apply to Timothy’s public life, while the other three are concerned with inner qualities (<i>love</I>, <i>faith</I> and <i>purity</I>) which nevertheless have a public manifestation. (Guthrie, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 109)</blockquote>
The issues Paul addresses are critical to the rest of the letter. Timothy is being asked to do what his older congregants have failed to do. <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) diagnoses:
<blockquote>While in I Timothy 4:6-16 Paul is speaking directly to Timothy, the historical situation at Ephesus is never far in the background; between the lines can be seen a constant comparison between what the Ephesian church was doing wrong and what Timothy should do correctly. Every one of the five qualities enumerated in this verse [I Timothy 4:12] is missing from the lives of the opponents. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 257-58)</blockquote>
In short, Timothy must live better than his adversaries, not stooping to their level.
<p>There are many benefits to this strategy. For one, Paul’s approach incorporates responding positively, not negatively, to criticism. <a href=https://www.fresno.edu/sites/default/files/hiebert-d-edmond.pdf STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">D. Edmond Hiebert</a> (1910-1995) observes:
<blockquote>“But be thou an ensample to them that believe” [I Timothy 4:12]. This positive injunction balances the previous negative. His life is to be such as will such every such adverse reaction about his youth. (Hiebert, <i>First Timothy (Everyman’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 85)</blockquote>
Paul’s prescription is often counterintuitive. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) and <a href=http://www.gracepres.org/about/staff_details.asp?id=38 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bryan Chapell</a> (b. 1954) confess:
<blockquote>The natural inclination when our leadership is challenged is not godliness but the opposite—to become defensive and respond with sarcasm or a putdown or to pull rank and become “presidential” (“I’m the chief here!” “Ever hear of the cloth?”) or to become coldly above it all, aloof, or grieved (“How could you ever question me?”). Any young believer (and some old ones too) can easily succumb to such responses. But ministry is thus diminished. (Hughes and Chappell, <i>1–2 Timothy and Titus: To Guard the Deposit (Preaching the Word</I>, 122)</blockquote>
Paul’s proposal also focuses Timothy inward, not outward. Timothy cannot control others’ prejudice or their response to his ministry. The only thing Timothy can control is his own behavior. Youth is often the time in life when others’ opinions matter most. Yet Timothy cannot regulate public opinion. He must respond by affecting the only thing he can: his own conduct.
<p><a href=http://www.anthonybrobinson.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Anthony B. Robinson</a> (b. 1948) and <a href=http://spu.edu/academics/school-of-theology/seattle-pacific-seminary/seminary-faculty/wall-robert STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert W. Wall</a> (b. 1947) inspect:
<blockquote>“Let no one despise your youth, but until I arrive set a pattern for believers in speech, in public conduct, in love, faith, and purity [I Timothy 4:12].” In other words, pay attention to yourself and to your own way of being in the world. Again, Paul’s emphasis is on self-management, self-awareness, and Timothy’s controlling what he has control over — that is, his own behavior. Sometimes we clergy members get wrapped around the axle concerning the behavior of others. We can point it out. We can offer sound teaching. But we can’t often change other people’s behavior, at least not directly. But what we can change and pay attention to is our own behavior. And sometimes that is our very best point of leverage for supporting change in the congregation: taking responsibility for our own behavior, setting “a pattern for believers in speech, in public conduct, in love, faith, and purity [I Timothy 4:12].” (Robinson and Wall, <i>Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for a New Day</I>, 121)</blockquote>
Paul’s words kill two birds with one stone: he simultaneously affirms Timothy while rebuking the congregation (I Timothy 4:12). It must not be forgotten that in writing, Paul publicly endorses his protégé.
<p><a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/robert-h-gundry.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) perceives:
<blockquote>As implied by the plural “you” in I Timothy 6:21, the Ephesian Christians will here this letter read to them though it’s addressed to Timothy. So the command, “No one I to be despising your youthfulness,” is indirectly addressed to them [I Timothy 4:12]. (Gundry, <i>Commentary on First and Second Timothy, Titus</i>)</blockquote>
Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) grants:
<blockquote>These words [I Timothy 4:12] produced encouragement in Timothy himself, but they could also set in order some dissident, fault-finding elements of the congregations. After all, Paul was bestowing his full blessing on Timothy, and he wanted the Ephesians to learn from what the young disciple did. (Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. [b. 1947], <i>1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary)</I>, 137)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/retired/gordon-d-fee STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gordon D. Fee</a> (b. 1934) expounds:
<blockquote>We now discover what is probably a hidden agenda that made it necessary for Paul to write this letter—Timothy’s youthfulness [I Timothy 4:12]. To say, <b>don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young</b>, is very likely two edged. It is first of all a word of encouragement to Timothy, because he was in fact a younger man...and perhaps timid (cf. I Corinthians 16:10-11; II Timothy 1:6ff)...But for the same reasons, it is likewise a word to the community, to let them know that, despite his youth, he has Paul’s own authority to <b>command and teach these things</b> (I Timothy 4:11)...On the contrary, not only are they <b>not</b> to <b>look down on</b> him <b>because</b> he is <b>young</b>, but they are to “look up” to him. He is to <b>set</b> (literally, “become”) <b>an example for the believers</b>. That the people of God are to learn Christian ethics by modeling after the apostolic example is a thoroughgoing, and crucial, Pauline concept (see I Thessalonians 1:6; II Thessalonians 3:7, 9; I Corinthians 4:6, 11:1; Philippians 3:17; cf. II Timothy 1:13). (Fee, <i>1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Understanding the Bible)</I>, 106-07)</blockquote>
Had Timothy verbally defended himself it might have added fuel to the fire and, at least in his critics’ minds, served to prove their point. Instead, Paul, who has seniority over all involved, defends his younger charge.
<p>All Timothy can do is live well and the situation in which he finds himself is one of the hardest times to do so. In the face of criticism, Timothy is hard pressed to behave in a Christian manner. How Timothy responds is part of the modeling that he is called to demonstrate for his congregation (I Timothy 4:12). His actions in these moments will speak volumes.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Is Paul’s interjection into the situation, as a “father” to Timothy (I Timothy 1:2), indicative of Timothy’s being too young for his position? When has someone publicly endorsed you? What young person can you be encouraging? When have you seen someone refuted by compliments bestowed on their opponent? Were you Timothy, how would you handle this unwarranted criticism? How do your typically respond to judgment, positively or negatively? How would the solution be different with another demographic; e.g. how would one respond to the claim of being too old? When are the young an example to all? When do you try to set an example? Is it ever better to respond to criticism with words than deeds?</font>
<p>“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” - John Locke (1632-1704), <i>An Essay Concerning Human Understanding</I>, p. 24Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-25216279605058211962014-08-07T15:00:00.000-07:002014-08-07T15:24:33.177-07:00Five Smooth Stones (I Samuel 17:40)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zUdyF6MJEYA/U-PteEAy7fI/AAAAAAAAI6E/u8_dW_Kpyf0/s1600/FiveSmoothStones.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zUdyF6MJEYA/U-PteEAy7fI/AAAAAAAAI6E/u8_dW_Kpyf0/s320/FiveSmoothStones.jpg" /></a></div><b>How many smooth stones did David pick up when he prepared to fight Goliath? Five (I Samuel 17:40)</b>
<p>David’s victory over Goliath is one of the Bible’s most famous stories (I Samuel 17:1-54). While relaying provisions to his three older brothers (I Samuel 17:12-23), David, then a young shepherd, learns that the mammoth Philistine has laid down the gauntlet to engage any Israelite in single combat (I Samuel 17:8-10). Enraged that none of his compatriots has accepted the challenge, David agrees to battle the giant (I Samuel 17:26, 31-32).
<p>The text does a great job of promoting this fight, spending 40 verses on the pre-fight build up (I Samuel 17:1-40) as compared to nine on the battle itself (I Samuel 17:41-49) and another nine on the post-fight analysis (I Samuel 17:50-58). Like a tale of the tape before a championship prize fight, the Bible carefully relates the armor of both contestants. It describes Goliath’s immense armor (I Samuel 17:5-7), whose mass is as impressive as its owner’s (I Samuel 17:4). In contrast, King Saul attempts to fit David with his own armor (I Samuel 17:38-39). Instead David adopts a less is more approach choosing the more familiar garb of a shepherd (I Samuel 17:40). The battle is not the time for experimentation.
<p>David’s meager arsenal consists of a stick, some stones and a sling (I Samuel 17:40):
<blockquote>He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine. (I Samuel 17:40 NASB)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/emerrill/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene H. Merrill</a> (b. 1934) recaps:
<blockquote>David armed only with his confidence in God, a <b>sling</b>, and <b>five smooth stones</b>, slew Goliath and brought back his severed <b>head</b> in triumph (I Samuel 17:33-51). (<a href=http://www.walvoord.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John F. Walvoord</a> [1910-2002] and <a href=http://www.dts.edu/read/roy-zuck-tribute/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Roy B. Zuck</a> [1932-2013], <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament</I>, 448)</blockquote>
The verse has rhetorical elements in Hebrew that are lost in translation (I Samuel 17:40). <a href=http://www.janfokkelman.nl/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J.P. Fokkelman</a> (b. 1940) reveals:
<blockquote>The verse regarding David’s weaponry has a virtuoso style [I Samuel 17:40]. Two very short lines with the rhyme <i>beyaādō</I>...surround two long lines, so that I Samuel 17:40abcd is a series ABB'A'. The middle lines I Samuel 17:40bc concern the smooth stones from the brook (I Samuel17:40b, look for, I Samuel 17:40c put away) an their length reflects the care and precision which David devotes to the hard core of his equipment. They start with “he chose” and end in “in the shepherd’s bag”, and that is a splendid find in Hebrew: the roots of <i>yibhar</I> and <i>yalqūt</I> are very close semantically and the substantive <i>yalqūt</I> looks like an imperfect. The pair is accompanied by the rhyme <i>lō</I>. The density of phonetic means continues however, and is impressive...The alliteration is exceptionally rich: h (5x), m (7x), q (5x), l (8x), and it has a special centre. The qof and the lamed, in fact, occur together in all four “weapons” (<i>mql</I>, <i>hlq</I>, <i>ylqt</I>, <i>ql‘</I>), nota bene in an alternation which respects and strengthens the pattern ABB'A', and this means that Israel’s secret weapon (the youth’s shepherd’s gear) is the motor of the sound patterns. Note that Goliath a little later on complains about the stick (<i>mql</I>) and breaks into curses (<i>qll!!</I>) [I Samuel 17:43], but will be tamed by the three weapons that he does <i>not</I> mention. By continuing with the alliteration with q and l he unwittingly digs his own grave. The abuse he utters [I Samuel 17:43-44], the last we hear from him himself, becomes a swansong which contributes to the power of Israel’s secret weapon. (Fokkelman, <i>Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume 2</I>, 178)</blockquote>
David brings his “staff” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “stick” (CEV, NASB) (I Samuel 17:40). Since he will not use the staff when facing Goliath, this “weapon” may have been a diversionary tactic.
<p><a href=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Alter/Alter.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert Alter</a> (b. 1935) considers:
<blockquote><i>He took his stick</I> [I Samuel 17:40]. That is, his shepherd’s staff, which he is used to carrying. David evidently does this as a decoy, encouraging Goliath to imagine he will use cudgel against sword (compare I Samuel 17:43) and thus camouflaging the lethal slingshot. (Alter, <i>The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel</I>, 108)</blockquote>
If the staff is intended to conceal David’s game plan it works. Goliath takes note of the stick as evidenced by his taunts (I Samuel 17:43).
<p>David has his weapon on hand but no ammunition so he carefully selects five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Rachelle Gilmour comments:
<blockquote>He [David] prepares himself for battle in I Samuel 17:40 by selecting five smooth stones and placing them in his pouch. He does not rush into battle like Saul [I Samuel 11:1-16]...but pauses to give Goliath a rather lengthy theological statement on the victory that is about to take place (I Samuel 17:45-47). David’s self-control after he receives the spirit is further highlighted by the contrast with Saul in I Samuel 16:14-23 who has now received an evil spirit. Saul is tormented and only the skillful lyre playing of David provides calm. (Gilmour, <i>Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel</I>, 123)</blockquote>
David’s attentiveness to his weaponry demonstrates that the shepherd has had time to think about the decision he is making. <a href=http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/marshall-ganz STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marshall Ganz</a> (b. 1943) suggests:
<blockquote>Plainly, David is courageous. But it takes more than courage to defeat Goliath. David wins the battle because he thinks about it differently. At first, he accepts the shield, sword, and helmet that conventional wisdom deems necessary [I Samuel 17:38-39]. He then realizes, however, that he cannot use these weapons effectively against a master of them. Instead, he conceives a plan of battle—a strategy—based on the five stones he notices in a creek bed, his skill with a slingshot, and the giant’s underestimation of him [I Samuel 17:40]. (Ganz, <i>Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement</I>)</blockquote>
David secures the stones in a shepherd’s “bag” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, RSV), “pouch” (ESV, NIV, NRSV) or “pack” (MSG), which he has brought with him (I Samuel 17:40). It likely serves the same function as a contemporary fanny pack.
<p>The Hebrew vocabulary used for the receptacle is obscure (I Samuel 17:40). <a href=http://www.lstc.edu/about/faculty/ralph-klein/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ralph W. Klein</a> (b.1936) informs:
<blockquote>The word ילקוט is a hapax legomenon. An ancient gloss was placed before it, identifying it as a shepherd’s bag (cf. I Samuel 17:40 and Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918]). (Klein, <i>1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 179)</blockquote>
The future king procures the stones from the “brook” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “stream” (NIV, NLT) or “wadi” (HCSB, NRSV) (I Samuel 17:40).
<p><a href=http://bibleseminary.academia.edu/DavidToshioTsumura STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Toshio Tsumura</a> (b. 1944) defines:
<blockquote><i>Wadi</I> (<i>hannahal</I>) is the dry riverbed (see Genesis 26:17) of the Valley of Elah [I Samuel 17:2, 19]. (Tsumura, <i>The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</i>, 459)</blockquote>
Specifically, David finds “five smooth stones” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) (I Samuel 17:40). The literal Hebrew is “smooth ones” with virtually all translations supplying the necessary noun.
<p>A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) describes:
<blockquote>An adjective used as a noun: “smooth ones.” The form is unique: B’s <i>teleious</I> is a mistaken correction of the literal <i>leious</I> (“smooth”). (Auld, <i>I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 206)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.knoxseminary.edu/knox-faculty/dr-bruce-k-waltke/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce K. Waltke</a> (b. 1930) and Michael O’Connor (1950-2007) explain:
<blockquote>Because the boundary between adjectives and substantives is not fixed or rigid, it is common to find nouns that are most often used as adjectives in substantive slots...Adjectives may occur as <i>constructs</I>, usually with a superlative force [Isaiah 19:11, Ezekiel 7:24; II Chronicles 21:7; I Samuel 17:40]. (Waltke and O’Connor, <i>An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax</I>, 261)</blockquote>
These stones are hardly pebbles. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) depicts:
<blockquote>Such stones were part of the normal repertoire of weapons in the ancient world (cf. II Chronicles 26:14), usually balls two or three inches in diameter and manufactured from flint (Ovid R. Sellers [1885-1975], “Sling Stones in Biblical Times,” <a href=http://www.asor.org/pubs/nea/back-issues/ba/><I>Biblical Archaeologist</I></a> 2/4 [1939]: 41-42,45). David, however, had a ready supply of naturally spherical stones of the right size at hand. (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 183)</blockquote>
The archaeological record attests to such weaponry. <a href=http://www.mbts.edu/academics/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Stephen J. Andrews</a> (b. 1954) and <a href=http://www.hlg.edu/academics/personnel-bio.php?id=602 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert B. Bergen</a> (b. 1954) document:
<blockquote>Excavations in Israel have revealed hundreds of sling stones at many fortified sites. They are typically the size of tennis balls and weigh about a pound each. An accomplished warrior could sling a stone this size at a rate of 100 to 150 miles an hour, making it a very lethal weapon. It is most likely that David chose stones from the dry stream bed of this size and weight. (Andrews and Bergen, <i>I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary)</I>, 127)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.hlg.edu/academics/personnel-bio.php?id=602 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert B. Bergen</a> (b. 1954) adds:
<blockquote>Examples of ancient Near Eastern slingstones are on display in the Lachish exhibit at the <a href=http://www.britishmuseum.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">British Museum</a>. Photographs of slingstones from Middle Eastern cultural sites can be seen in <i>The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures</I>, editor James B. Pritchard [1909-1997] (<a href=http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">London</a>: Princeton: 1958, plate 101; and <i>New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land</I>, editor <a href=http://dor.huji.ac.il/ES.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eprhaim Stern</a> [b. 1934] (<a href=http://www1.nyc.gov/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">New York</a>: <a href=http://www.simonandschuster.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Simon & Schuster</a>, 1993), 2:463. A Middle Eastern slingstone from the private collection of <a href=http://www.evangelical.edu/david-dorsey/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David A. Dorsey</a> [b. 1949] at the <a href=http://www.evangelical.edu/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Evangelical School of Theology</a> weighs approximately 450 grams, very much in line with those on display elsewhere. (Bergen, <i>1,2 Samuel (New American Commentary)</I>, 194)</blockquote>
The stone’s smoothness is essential for their purpose (I Samuel 17:40). Smooth stones make superior slingshot pellets as they produce more predictable trajectories and are less apt to get caught on the cradle.
<p><a href=https://www.facebook.com/phil.farver STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Phil Farver</a> (b. 1956) praises:
<blockquote>Picking smooth stones showed wisdom on David’s part [I Samuel 17:40]. He demonstrated that he knew the weapons he chose, how to use them and what they could accomplish. The smoothness showed that the stones had gone through a refining process by being tumbled around, tossed to and fro, in the stream and polished, ready to be used. The smoothness also guaranteed a faster, straighter flight from sling to target, generating more force against that intended target. Odd shaped stones or stones with jagged edges were not reliable and very difficult to control. (Farver, <i>Five Smooth Stones: Proven Steps for Positive Success</I>, 27-28)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/thomas.logie.7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Thomas D. Logie</a> (b. 1951) compares:
<blockquote>Modern rifling to impart a spiral would not have been available to David. For the same reason as a baseball pitcher wants a seam in a baseball to make it break, David wanted to avoid seams or similar irregularities because he needed to throw hard and straight. So David learned to use smooth stones as his ammunition. I Samuel 17:40 reflects accurate science; if David had to use his slingshot in an emergency, the last thing he needed was to throw a knuckleball. (Logie, <i>Meditations on Holiness</i>)</blockquote>
These stones are selected for their compatibility to a sling (I Samuel 17:40, 50). <a href=http://bibleseminary.academia.edu/DavidToshioTsumura STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Toshio Tsumura</a> (b. 1944) identifies:
<blockquote><i>Sling</I> (<i>qela‘</I>) is a military weapon, common in the ancient Near East; Egyptian evidence goes back to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Note the slingers, wearing iron helmets and coats of mail, depicted on the reliefs in the royal palaces at Nineveh and Nimrud. Hebrew usages support this meaning, though the Ugaritic counterpart of <i>ql‘</I> could mean “shield” on the basis of Akkadian <i>kabābu</I> (<i>ga-ba-bu</I> in <i>Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit</I> 4.63:24, etc.) “shield.” (Tsumura, <i>The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</i>, 460)</blockquote>
<a href=http://web.evangel.edu/Directory/bios/index.asp?username=NunnallyW STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">W.E. Nunnally</a> (b. 1955) describes:
<blockquote>A weapon consisting of two thongs made of rushes, animal sinews, leather, cloth, or hair attached to a wider pocket that held the projectile. The projectile was placed in the pocket and swung above the head one to three times. When the desired centrifugal force had been generated, one thong was released, discharging the missile. The sling was inexpensively manufactured and required little technical know-how to produce. Optimum accuracy (Judges 20:16) was achieved only by years of practice. Stones were carried into battle in a bag (I Samuel 17:40). During a siege they were piled at the slinger’s feet. The average slingstone was slightly smaller than a tennis ball. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Sling”, <i>Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible</I>, 1233)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/v-philips-long STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">V. Philips Long</a> (b. 1951) clarifies:
<blockquote>One is not to think of a forked stick with an elastic catapult stretched between it, which is a modern invention, but of a leather or cloth pouch to which two cords were attached. A slingstone, either crafted by hand or, as in the present instance, rounded by water action, was placed in the pouch and then, after swinging the sling overhead or to the side to gain momentum, was released at great speed by letting go of one of the cords. Slings were affordable but effective weapons used, for instance, by shepherds to drive off predators. David’s background as a shepherd would have afforded him opportunity to develop considerable skill in the use of a sling. In time, slings became (along with bows and arrows) a regular part of the long-range arsenal of ancient Near Eastern armies. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 351)</blockquote>
The birth of the sling represented an important military development in the ancient world. Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) traces:
<blockquote>An important innovation was the sling. Evidence of its existence appears at <a href=http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Catal Hüyük</a> between 5500 and 4500 B.C. Most likely the early sling fired stones selected for their small size and smoothness. David, prior to his battle with Goliath, selected just such stones in preparing for battle. At Catal Hüyük we see the first evidence of shot made from sunbaked clay, man’s first foray into making a specific type of expendable ammunition. The sling represented a giant leap in the range of killing technology. (Gabriel, <i>The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development</I>, 28)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.lstc.edu/about/faculty/ralph-klein/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ralph W. Klein</a> (b.1936) supports:
<blockquote>Assyrian slingers wearing copper helmets and coats of mail, are depicted in Sennacherib’s palace (7th century, <i>The Illustrated Bible Dictionary</i> 1, 115). The slingstone was held in a pouch with cords attached at opposite ends. The sling was whirled over the head until one end was suddenly released. While I Samuel 17 apparently understands the sling as a shepherd’s weapon, it could also be used by organized armies, and with amazing accuracy as the Benjamites demonstrated (Judges 20:16; cf. also I Samuel 25:29; I Chronicles 12:2 and II Chronicles 26:14). (Klein, <i>1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 179)</blockquote>
The sling could be highly destructive in the hands of a skilled user. Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) assesses:
<blockquote>In a skilled hand the <i>sling</I> could be a deadly weapon. According to Judges 20:16 the tribe of Benjamin could at one time count on the services of seven hundred left-handed slingers every one of whom ‘could sling a stone at a hair, and not miss’. Compare also the ambidextrous Benjamites mentioned in I Chronicles 12:2. The sling was commonly deployed in near eastern armies, the evidence in the case of Egypt going back to the beginning of the second millennium BC. (Gordon, <i>I & II Samuel: A Commentary</I>, 157)</blockquote>
<a href=http://gladwell.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Malcolm Gladwell</a> (b. 1963) appreciates:
<blockquote>Slinging took an extraordinary amount of skill and practice. But in experienced hands, the sling was a devastating weapon. Paintings from medieval times show slingers hitting birds in midflight. Irish slingers were said to be able to hit a coin from as far away as they could see it, and in the Old Testament Book of Judges, slingers are described as being accurate within a “hair’s breadth” [Judges 20:16] An experienced slinger could kill or seriously injure a target at a distance of up to two hundred yards. The Romans even had a special set of tongs made just to remove stones that had been embedded in some poor soldier’s body by a sling. Imagine standing in front of a <a href=http://mlb.mlb.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Major League Baseball</a> pitcher as he aims a baseball at your head. That’s what facing a slinger was like—only what was being thrown was not a ball of cork and leather but a solid rock. (Gladwell, <i>David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants</I>, 9-10)</blockquote>
The sling is especially emphasized in the story of David and Goliath (I Samuel 17:1-58). The <i>Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</I> observes:
<blockquote>Perhaps the most famous sling is the one carried by David and used to fell Goliath. This particular weapon is not just mentioned in the narrative (I Samuel 17:40) but assumes a rhetorical role in the summary: “So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him” (I Samuel 17:50). As it turns out, this weapon choice has something to say about Israel’s up-an-coming king. First, it says that David was smart. When we consider the list of weapons carried by Goliath (I Samuel 17:4-7), we can see that he intended to engage his Israelite competitor in close-range combat. While David had briefly considered the use of a sword (I Samuel 17:39), he quickly abandoned it in favor of the sling. In doing so David betrayed his intentions; he was not planning to get anywhere near the Philistine fighting machine but rather to dispatch him from a distance. While this reveals his thoughtful intelligence, it also says something about this faith in the Lord. David took only one weapon into the fight, counting on the Lord to guide his aim and the stone toward his bellicose target. Thus the author of I Samuel directs us to the sling because it was the smart choice and because it was the choice that marked David as a leader after God’s own heart [I Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22]. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-a-beck/37/430/9a7 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John A. Beck</a> [b. 1956], “Sling”, <i>Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</i>)</blockquote>
George B. Caird (1917-1984) notices:
<blockquote>It is curious that although both sources agree on David’s use of the sling on this occasion [I Samuel 17:40, 50], we never hear of it again in any of his subsequent battles. (George Arthur Buttrick [1892-1980], <i>Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (Interpreter’s Bible)</I>, 978)</blockquote>
The use of the sling is part of David’s presenting himself as he truly is: as a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11, 19, 17:15, 20, 28, 34). The sling is a shepherd’s tool. <a href=http://www.bibleprofessor.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James E. Smith</a> (b. 1939) imagines:
<blockquote>David chose to arm himself with what he knew best. He took his staff in one hand. He selected five smooth stones from the stream nearby and out them into <b>the pouch of his shepherd’s bag</b>, i.e., something akin to a knapsack. With his sling in his hand he went out to confront the Philistine. Obviously David was skilled in the use of the sling, having practiced endless hours with it while guarding the sheep. (Smith, <i>I & II Samuel (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 228)</blockquote>
Shawn Easton connects:
<blockquote>We see in I Samuel 17:40 David taking the staff that he used to fend off wild beasts while tending to the sheep. He also took five smooth stones out of the brook and put them in a shepherd’s bag. There we see a reference to David’s experience as a shepherd. We see David taking something out of his victorious past (the shepherd bag and staff) and combining it with something from the present (five smooth stones) to deal with the future (the Philistine Goliath. (Easton, <i>Divine Connections: The Key to Unlocking the Purpose in the Kingdom</I>, 89-90)</blockquote>
While there is a rationale to David selecting stones, there is question as to why the Bible specifically references the number five (I Samuel 17:40). <a href=http://www.crandallu.ca/staff/keith-bodner/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Keith Bodner</a> (b. 1967) asks:
<blockquote>Does the reader have any clues as to why David chose <i>five</I> stones? Did he lack confidence in his swinging ability? Or is the head of Goliath a rather big target that may require more than one rock to penetrate? (Bodner, <i>National Insecurity: A Primer on the First Book of Samuel</I>, 130)</blockquote>
There are many metaphorical interpretations associated with the number five. Five appears in Biblical expressions relating to being hopelessly outnumbered (Leviticus 26:8; I Corinthians 14:19). Biblical numerologists cite five as the number of the Bible and suggest that David’s selection represents his using the very word of God to defeat Goliath. In charismatic circles it has been said that five represents the “five fold ministry” of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher.
<p>Likely the most famous allegorical use comes from Augustine (354-430). Ferdinand Lot (1866-1952) chronicles:
<blockquote>Saint Augustine [354-430] himself, while protesting against the dangerous neglect into which the literal significance of the Holy Scriptures had fallen, is thoroughly imbued with the method. For example, here is the analysis of his sermon on David and Goliath, preached at Hippo:—“David pre-figures Christ, and Goliath the Devil. David takes five stones from the brook and puts them in the vessel used for milking his sheep; then, armed, he marches against the enemy. The five stones are an image of the five books of the law of Moses. The Law, in its turn, contains ten precepts; that is why David fights with five stones and sings to an instrument with ten strings. Observe that he does not sling five stones but only one, which is the Unity that fulfils the Law, namely Charity. (Lot, <i>The End of the Ancient World</I>, 375-76)</blockquote>
Edward A. Gosselin (b. 1943) interprets:
<blockquote>Augustine [354-430]’s abandonment of the Old Testament event for the New Testament reading may be seen in the following, rather typical example. In explicating, Psalm 43, Augustine points out that the historical event which prompted the psalm’s composition was the battle between David and Goliath. Quickly shedding the Old Testament ambience, Augustine explains that David is really Christ, Goliath Satan; that the five stones with which David armed himself were the Pentateuch, while the one stone which David hurled at Goliath was the New Testament. Thus, says Augustine, the Law of Moses was made efficacious by the grace of the New Testament, which killed Satan and sin. (<a href=http://uca.edu/english/facultystaff/dr-raymond-jean-frontain/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Raymond-Jean Frontain</a> [b. 1951] and Jan Wojcik [b. 1944], “Two Views of the Evangelical David: Lefèvre d’Etaples [1455-1536] and Theodore Beza [1519-1605]”, <i>The David Myth in Western Literature</I>, 57)</blockquote>
Some more recent homileticians have also tried to connect David and Jesus using the five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). <a href=http://www.fultonsheen.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fulton J. Sheen</a> (1885-1979) preaches:
<blockquote>A new David arose to slay the Goliath of evil, not with five stones but with five wounds—hideous scars on hands, feet, and side; and the battle was fought not with armor glistening under a noonday sun, but with flesh torn away so the bones could be numbered. The Artist had put the last touch in his masterpiece, and with the joy of the strong He uttered the song of triumph that His work was completed. (Sheen, <i>Life of Christ</I>, 559)</blockquote>
Pseudo-Philo adapts the number of stones to better fit a less literal reading. <a href=http://magazine.holycross.edu/issue_46_1/46_1_in_memoriam/murphy STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frederick J. Murphy</a> (1949-2011) notes:
<blockquote>In I Samuel 17:40, David chooses five smooth stones for his sling. They become seven in <i>Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum</i> 61:5 and on them David writes the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, himself, and God. This symbolic act underlines Israel’s very identity. Israel’s relationship with its God is its very core. (Murphy, <i>Pseudo-Philo : Rewriting the Bible: Rewriting the Bible</I>, 210-11)</blockquote>
Other interpreters have attempted to link the number five to Goliath himself. The five stones may in some way correlate to Goliath making five boasts in his mocking challenge to the Israelites (I Samuel 17:8, 9, 10, 43, 44). If there is a connection here, it is an editorial insertion after the battle as only three of Goliath’s insults occur before David selects the rocks (I Samuel 17:8, 9, 10).
<p>More commonly, David’s selection of the five smooth stones is presented as the shepherd preparing for retribution from Goliath’s four relatives. This is based upon II Samuel 21:15-22 and a parallel passage in I Chronicles 20:5. Though the Bible does not specifically state that Goliath had four brothers, he had at least one (II Samuel 21:19).
<p><a href=http://www.ttb.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">J. Vernon McGee</a> (1904-1988) typifies:
<blockquote>Some people believe that David chose five smooth stones so that if he missed his first shot, he could use one or all of the others. David did not intend to miss, friend. Then why did he select five stones? The answer is found in II Samuel 21:22: “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.” Goliath had four sons, and David was sure they would come out when he killed their father. This is why David picked five stones. That was the number he needed. (McGee, <i>First and Second Samuel (Thru the Bible)</I>, 98)</blockquote>
This conjecture does not fit the context because even if Goliath did have four brothers, it is doubtful that David would have been aware of this fact. David is portrayed as being shocked by Goliath’s challenge and is seen asking questions about the situation (I Samuel 17:26, 29).
<p><a href=https://www.facebook.com/phil.farver STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Phil Farver</a> (b. 1956) situates:
<blockquote>Why five smooth stones [I Samuel 17:40]? Why not one? Why not ten?...I have heard preachers explain that since Goliath had four brothers, David took with him the number of stones he would need: one each for Goliath and his brothers. I researched the story and I don’t believe that David knew that Goliath had four brothers. According to what is written David came into the camp without any prior knowledge of what was happening at the time, other than the fact that Israel was involved in a military battle with the Philistines. In fact, it seems he was taken by surprise by what he observed when he entered the camp [I Samuel 17:26, 29]. (Farver, <i>Five Smooth Stones: Proven Steps for Positive Success</I>, 27)</blockquote>
That the four remaining stones are not connected to Goliath’s family is supported by the fact that David does not slay any other giants. Further, he is facing a huge obstacle and for optimum results, his sole focus should be on Goliath, the giant at hand.
<p>A more likely yet no more substantiated supposition is that David planned complete obliteration of the enemy. The Philistines controlled five cities each led by a lord (Joshua 13:3; I Samuel 6:16, 17, 18). Goliath was the representative of Gath (I Samuel 17:4, 23), one of the five Philistine strongholds.
<p>The simplest explanation to David’s rationale is that the shepherd is being pragmatic (I Samuel 17:40). He could not have carried many stones and the extras provide a contingency plan in the event he misses or one blow is not adequate to fell the giant. Likewise, carrying more than five would be pointless as had five shots been unequal to the task, he would likely have already been defeated. From this perspective, David is not placing all of his eggs in one basket. Proponents of this explanation laud David for being responsible and not limiting God to a single result.
<p>The debate over the meaning of the five stones rages as it pertains to whether or not David exhibits complete trust in God. Many have viewed a pragmatic David as hedging his bets. A deficit in faith does not seem to fit the context as a lack of confidence is not part of this story (I Samuel 17:26, 32-37). In the parlance of today’s youth, David had to have some serious stones to undertake this mission in the first place.
<p>Some have even seen the five smooth stones as evidence of doubt (I Samuel 17:40). <a href=http://www.jentezenfranklin.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jentezen Franklin</a> (b. 1962) assures:
<blockquote>Do you know why I think David picked up four more stones than he needed? I think it was afraid he might miss. It doesn’t take a <i>lot</I> of faith; it only takes faith the size of a mustard seed [Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6]— just a <i>little</I> faith. You don’t have to have great faith, just a <i>little</I> faith. (<a href=http://www.lifechurch.tv/who-we-are/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig Groeschel</a> [b. 1967], “God is Able” <i>What Is God Really Like?</I>, 87)</blockquote>
David does not violate any command when selecting the five stones (I Samuel 17:40). He is not told that one shot will slay the giant and it is quite possible that one stone may not be enough.
<p><a href=https://www.facebook.com/clarkstrand STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Clark Strand</a> (b. 1957) considers:
<blockquote>In the end, it isn’t a matter of how much or how little faith David has that God will help him defeat the giant. He still doesn’t know how many stones it will take. He still doesn’t know how much, or for how long, God expects him to fight...Once the conversation with God is underway, we will be told everything we need to know, <i>as</I> we need to know it. And <i>if</i> we need to know...That is what is so beautiful about the moment in the story when David stoops down at the brook to gather five stones for his scrip [I Samuel 17:40]. How long will he have to fight? He doesn’t know. How much of the outcome will be determined by his skill with the sling and how much by God? There is no way to separate the two...Even when the story is over and the giant lies dead at his feet, there is no clear line dividing David from the one he calls “the Living God” [I Samuel 17:26, 36]. (Strand, <i>How to Believe in God: Whether You Believe in Religion or Not</I>, 89-90)</blockquote>
Instead of doubt, perhaps David exhibits humility and prudence.
<p>The same God who guides David against Goliath provides not one but five suitable rocks in the brook (I Samuel 17:40). As is often the case, God presents more than is necessary (Ephesians 3:20-21).
<p><a href=http://www.compassion.com/executives/wess-stafford-executive-bio.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Wess Stafford</a> (b. 1949) reflects:
<blockquote>The bit about David choosing five smooth stones from the stream (I Samuel 17:40) made perfect sense to my little band of marksmen. No, not because of the elaborate conjecture I’ve since heard from Bible expositors about Goliath having four fierce relatives to be killed, and so this was some great symbolism for the future. When you live and die by the slings as we did, you’re always walking around with one eye on the ground looking for the next perfect stone. Round rocks are hard to come by and can make all the difference in the world. If one has a little bump on a side, the rock can veer off in flight. Flat rocks? Forget about it? You’re not going to hit anything...I’m pretty sure David picked up five smooth stones simply because they were right in front of him. All us boys knew he should need only one to take care of Goliath, but why pass up the other four? (Stafford, <i>Too Small to Ignore: Why the Least of These Matters Most</I>, 29)</blockquote>
Perhaps David picks up the rocks simply because they are there. He could always use the other four later; they can be saved for a rainy day.
<p>None of these theories regarding David’s five smooth stones is wholly satisfying (I Samuel 17:40). What is clear is that regardless of how many stones David takes into battle, he appears overmatched in this contest. David’s strategy is clearly offensive minded, which offends Goliath (I Samuel 17:43). In bringing no protective gear, the shepherd is quite literally defenseless. In choosing not to play by Goliath’s rules, David becomes the proverbial man taking a knife to a gun fight.
<p><a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=2 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggeman</a> (b. 1933) comments:
<blockquote>David proposes a radical alternative, only five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). David must have appeared to Saul (and to all the others) to be unarmed and defenseless. David’s alternative must have seemed to be no viable alternative at all. The narrator, however, permits no protest or reservation against David by Saul. David’s refusal of Saul’s armor is let stand as the last word [I Samuel 17:39]. David’s confidence is in the “living God,” who has delivered and who will deliver [I Samuel 17:26, 36]. Such faith is David’s alternative to conventional modes of self-defense. (Brueggemann, <i>First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 131)</blockquote>
<p>Five proves to be an excess of four as David needs only one smooth stone to fell the Philistine giant (I Samuel 17:49). After the fact, five stones may seem like overkill or an abundance (I Samuel 17:40). But going into battle David’s arsenal likely seem quite insufficient. The difference in perspective pertains to hindsight. It often does.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why does David procure precisely five stones in preparation to face Goliath (I Samuel 17:40)? Is there any reason why David would not take all of the adequate ammunition which presented itself? Does having enough ammo to take multiple shots represent a lack of faith or prudence? Does David’s taking more than one stone into battle in any way diminish his triumph; is it indicative of doubt? Do the four unused stones provide any benefits? Why does the Bible include David’s selection of exactly five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40); what, if anything, does this detail add to the story? Were you David, would you have picked up the “extra” stones? When have you presumed you had too little only to find later that you actually had a surplus?</font>
<p>There are many contrasts to be made between David’s armor and that of the other two primary figures in the story, Goliath and Saul (I Samuel 17:5-7, 38-39). Notably, David respectfully declines his king’s offer of armor (I Samuel 17:39). Many have noted the shepherd’s wisdom in not donning his king’s bulky gear.
<p><a href=https://twitter.com/JerrySutton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jerry Sutton</a> (b. 1951) approves:
<blockquote>David could not, did not, and would not use Saul’s armor and weapons [I Samuel 17:39]. His assessment, was, “These are untested.” So what did he do? He went to war with the familiar: a sling, a pouch with five smooth stones, and perhaps a staff [I Samuel 17:40]. He played to his strengths, trusting for God’s intervention, and walked away a hero. (Sutton, <i>A Primer on Biblical Preaching</I>, 14)</blockquote>
This observation is ancient. John Cassian (360-435) apprises:
<blockquote>We sometimes see a bad example drawn from good things. For if someone presumes to do the same things but not with the same disposition and orientation or with unlike virtue, he easily falls into the snares of deception and death on account of those very things form which others acquire the fruits of eternal life. That brave boy who was set against the most warlike giant in a contest of arms would certainly have experienced this if he had put on Saul’s manly and heavy armor, with which a person of more robust age would have laid low whole troops of the enemy. This would undoubtedly have imperiled the boy, except that with wise discretion he chose the kind of weapon that was appropriate for his youth and armed himself against the dreadful foe not with the breastplate and shield that he saw others outfitted with but with the projectiles that he himself was able to fight with [I Samuel 17:40]. Conference 24.8.1-2. (<a href=http://www.johnrfranke.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John R. Franke</a> [b. 1961], <i>Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)</I>, 272)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.regentaudio.com/collections/eugene-peterson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene H. Peterson</a> (b. 1932) applies:
<blockquote>The offer of bronze helmet and coat of mail was well intentioned [I Samuel 17:38]. But to accept it would have been disastrous. David needed what was authentic to him. Even as I do. For even though the weaponry urged upon me by my culture in the form of science and knowledge is formidable I cannot work effectively with what is imposed from the outside. Metallic forms hung on my frame will give me, perhaps, an imposing an aspect but will not help me do my proper work. (Peterson, <i>Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work</I>, 240)</blockquote>
Kenneth L. Chafin (1926-2001) concurs:
<blockquote>Saul’s effort to help David has been copied by many since then [[I Samuel 17:38]. Nothing comes more naturally to people than trying yo get someone to fight our battles the way we would were we fighting them. Through the centuries that Christians have been reading this story they have been moved by the wisdom of David for not trying to do battle with someone else’s armor. People need to have confidence in their own gifts, experiences, and abilities if they are to face the giants in their lives. (Chafin, <i>1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament</I>, 145)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/bhauthor/john-r-bisagno/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John R. Bisagno</a> (b. 1934) concludes:
<blockquote>David was faithful to hone those skills that came naturally to him. Our Lord only expects the employment of the natural gifts He has placed within our hands. God’s question is always, “What are you going to do with what you’ve got?” Whether it is a staff, a lunch, an empty net or a sling, God doesn’t ask for very much at all. He just asks for all of you. Five smooth stones will do just fine. (Bisagno, <i>Principle Preaching: How to Create and Deliver Purpose Driven Sermons for Life Application</I>, 88)</blockquote>
David is also outfitted entirely differently from his opponent, Goliath. A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) contrasts:
<blockquote>The pieces of armed protection provided by Saul correspond strikingly to the elements of Goliath’s armor (I Samuel 17:5-7). They are not said to be heavy, but David is unable to walk, and what else could a bronze helmet be but heavy? Nor are David’s own weapons of choice called “light.” But the name of everything he does select (I Samuel 17:40) plays on and hints at <i>qal</I>, the Hebrew adjective for “light” and “fast”: most obviously his “stick” (<i>mql</I>) and “sling” (<i>ql’</I>), but also (with the key consonants reversed) the “smooth” [stones] (<i>hlqy</I>) and his “pouch” (<i>ylqwt</i>)—with this young champion in the making, words and reality are in perfect fit. (Auld, <i>I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 211)</blockquote>
David does not just reject the king’s armor he rejects armor in general (I Samuel 17:38-40). This further underscores the disparity between David and Goliath. <a href=http://www.hlg.edu/academics/personnel-bio.php?id=602 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert B. Bergen</a> (b. 1954) juxtaposes:
<blockquote>The weapons David gathered for use against Goliath—the stick and the stones [I Samuel 17:40]—were not products of human artifice; rather, they were shaped by God. As such the author may have included these details as a counterpoint to I Samuel 13:19-22; the Philistines feared and relied on weapons pulled from human forges, but David would conquer them with divinely manufactured weapons. Armed with these provisions, David “approached the Philistine” [I Samuel 17:40]. (Bergen, <i>1,2 Samuel (New American Commentary)</I>, 194-95)</blockquote>
David Jobling (b. 1941) bolsters:
<blockquote>Goliath, decked out for battle in a massive weight of “bronze” and “iron” (I Samuel 17:5-7) contrasts starkly with David, who refuses any armor at all (I Samuel 17:38-39) and fights with stones, natural objects (I Samuel 17:40). Goliath’s grotesquely metallic appearance may be lined with the Philistine monopoly on iron (I Samuel 13:19-22)—he is a fantasized version of Philistine technological superiority. (Jobling, <I>1 Samuel (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</I>, 220)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=2 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Walter Brueggeman</a> (b. 1933) critiques:
<blockquote>Saul does not understand anything. He has uttered Yahweh’s name. But he wants to outdo Goliath on Goliath’s term in I Samuel 17:38-39. so he offers armor, helmet, coat of mail, sword—David “tried in vain to go” with such encumbrance. David’s contrast is with both Saul and Goliath. Unlike them, he goes unencumbered (“I am not used to them” [I Samuel 17:39]). Both of them—the one a braggart, the other a coward—trust in arms. But David does not trust in arms because of who he is and who his people are: people who have learned that the others always have a monopoly on arms. The tribe must fight in another way. David takes five smooth stones and his sling. They are enough [I Samuel 17:40]. (Brueggemann, <i>David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory</I>, 25)</blockquote>
The most puzzling piece of the story remains why the Bible sees fit to include the detail about David’s five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Preachers have often used David’s arsenal as sermon fodder.
<p>For instance, in his best selling book, <i>Facing Your Giants</I>, <a href=http://maxlucado.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Max Lucado</a> (b. 1955) writes:
<blockquote>David took five stones [I Samuel 17:40]. He made five decisions. Do likewise. Past. Prayer. Priority. Passion. And persistence...Next time Goliath wakes you up, reach for a stone. Odds are, he’ll be out of the room before you can load your sling. (Lucado, <i>Facing Your Giants: A David and Goliath Story for Everyday People</I>, 159)</blockquote>
Though this sermonic technique can be effective, it can often defeat the purpose of the story. <a href=http://www.spcgreenville.org/about-second/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard D. Phillips</a> (b. 1960) evaluates:
<blockquote>The story of David’s victory over Goliath has launched many five-point sermons, one point for each of the smooth stones that David took from the brook and put into his pouch [I Samuel 17:40]. Usually these sermons list principles or behaviors by which even the skinniest Christian can take down the brawniest spiritual enemy...David’s victory, however, was anything but the triumph of an “everyman.” David was not just anyone in Israel, but the one man whom God had especially anointed to lead and deliver his people, for which God had equipped him with the Holy Spirit (see I Samuel 16:3). (Phillips, <i>1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary)</I>, 304)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ps.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/wayne-a-grudem/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Wayne Grudem</a> (b. 1948) advises:
<blockquote>Asking what the original author intended the original readers to understand will help the interpreter avoid fanciful allegories that improperly interpret the text. For instance, an interpreter who doesn’t follow this procedure might find all sorts of fanciful interpretations of the “five smooth stones” that David took to fight Goliath (I Samuel 17:40). A modern charismatic interpreter, given to allegorizing, might say that these five smooth stones are the fivefold manifestations of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 4:11. “But no,” a Calvinistic interpreter might answer. He would say that it’s obvious that the “five smooth stones’ represent the famous “five points of Calvinism.” Then a third allegorical interpreter, an ethics professor, might say that they were both wrong because David is going forth to war against Goliath, and therefore the “five smooth stones” obviously represent the five sides of the Pentagon building in <a href=http://washington.org/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Washington</a>, <a href=http://dc.gov/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">DC</a>, and they therefore give support to the “just war” theory!...Unless we first anchor our interpretation in what the original author wanted the original readers to understand, there will be no limit to the variety of such incorrect interpretations that have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the text. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/R/Lee-Ryken STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Leland Ryken</a> [b.1942] and <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/todd-wilson/9/383/b46 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Todd Wilson</a> [b. 1976], “Right and Wrong Interpretation of the Bible: Some Suggestions for Pastors and Bible Teachers”, <i>Preach the Word: Essays on Expository Preaching: In Honor of R. Kent Hughes [b. 1942]</I>, 67)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John H. Walton</a> (b. 1952) and <a href=http://www.crossway.org/authors/kim-e-walton/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kim E. Walton</a> (b. 1954) refocus:
<blockquote>David is not the hero—God is. To paint David as the hero runs exactly opposite to David’s own perspective and what the narrator wanted to emphasize. Furthermore, just because God brought down David’s enemies does not mean that he will give us victory over all our enemies. We cannot extrapolate the work of God to everyone’s situation at any given time. Resist using the “lesson by metaphor.” We should not be asking, “What giant in your life does God need to overcome?” or “What are the five stones that you have in your bag?” These do not get to the authority of the teaching of the text, clever as they may be. (Walton and Walton, <i>The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible</I>, 165)</blockquote>
The most important contrast in the story is not between David and Goliath or even David and Saul; instead it is the apposition of David’s giant God and the giant Philistine.
<p>Technically, though David credits God for his success (I Samuel 17:37, 45-47), the narrator never explicitly does so. Peter D. Miscall (b. 1943) acknowledges:
<blockquote>We cannot automatically assume that success or failure indicates that good or evil, in whatever sense, has preceded. For example, David’s killing of Goliath [I Samuel 17:1-58] can be explained in a variety of ways, including an element of chance, i.e. David gambles and wins. Throughout the remainder of I Samuel, David will generally succeed, but we can only ask, and then again, why? Is his success due to the Lord’s intervention, and, if so, does this have anything to do with David’s character or behavior? Or is it due to his own ability and sagacity, to Saul’s incompetence, to the help of others, or to just plain luck? The same applies to Saul’s failure. (Miscall, <i>1 Samuel: A Literary Reading</I>, 123)</blockquote>
There can be little doubt that the Bible assumes God’s agency in David’s victory. <a href=http://www.peacetrustkanyakumari.org/gnana.htm STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gnana Robinson</a> (b. 1935) supplants:
<blockquote>He [David] merely takes his shepherd’s weapons — a staff, a sling, and “five smooth stones” (I Samuel 17:40). The emphasis here is that it is not so much David who is going to fight, but the LORD (I Samuel 17:37; cf. I Samuel 17:45-47). (Robinson, <i>1 & 2 Samuel: Let Us be Like the Nations (International Theological Commentary)</I>, 101)</blockquote>
Frank Johnson (b. 1943) presumes:
<blockquote>Clearly David’s inexperience and inadequate equipment mandate divine assistance. But David is convinced that God will deliver him and aid him, just as before [I Samuel 17:37, 45-47]. He is not afraid. (Johnson, <i>First and Second Samuel (Basic Bible Commentary)</I>, 64)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.spcgreenville.org/about-second/staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Richard D. Phillips</a> (b. 1960) expounds:
<blockquote>Divested of Saul’s armor [I Samuel 17:38-39], David turned to face the Philistine giant: “Then he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones from the brook and put them in his shepherd’s pouch. His sling was in his hand, and he approached the Philistine” (I Samuel 17:40). But it was not with these only that David went forth to fight Goliath: “He went to the conflict with a blazing concern for the honour of God, with confidence in the certainty of his promises and with the power of the Spirit of God.” David advanced against the Philistine not in the armor and identity of “a king...like all the nations,” which Saul was (I Samuel 8:5), relying on nothing really different from the armor and weaponry of evil Goliath, but as a shepherd-servant of the Lord, defending God’s honor and protecting God’s people in the power of the Lord himself. In this way, whether he realized it or not, David identified with God’s great champions of prior years, shepherd-leaders such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, men of spiritual valor who lived and fought by faith in the promises of God. (Phillips, <i>1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary)</I>, 299)</blockquote>
Elizabeth Achtemeier (1926-2002) contends:
<blockquote>What a hero! No, David slays Goliath “that all the earth may now that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s (I Samuel 17:46-47). It is God who wins the victory...God chooses what is weak in the world to shame the strong (I Corinthians 1:27). It is always thus in God’s working in this world. (Achtemeier, <i>Preaching and Reading the Old Testament Lessons: With an Eye to the New, Cycle B</i>, 156)</blockquote>
David takes only five smooth stones and faith to face a giant (I Samuel 17:40). Yet they are enough. Equipment and armament do not decide the battle. Nor do David’s skill and courage. It is God who assures the shepherd’s victory. David’s triumph over Goliath echoes throughout history as a reminder that God is indeed sufficient.
<p><font color="#66CD00">What do you take into battle with you? On which are you more reliant, God or technology? Do you credit God with your successes? If so, how? Do the “extra” stones in any way detract from God’s miracle? Do you, like David, have confidence in God’s sufficiency?</font>
<p>“The greatest need of our age and of every age, the greatest need of every human heart, is to know the resources and sufficiency of God.” - <a href=https://www.cmalliance.org/about/history/simpson STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A.B. Simpson</a> (1843-1919), <i>But God</I>, PrefaceChandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-69100199579799256912014-07-30T15:00:00.000-07:002014-07-30T15:00:03.402-07:00Talitha Kum: Get Up! (Mark 5:41)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dBKLuNMZj6A/U81JKFc0fNI/AAAAAAAAI5s/vxhZd9JDbQE/s1600/TalithaKum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="289.333" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dBKLuNMZj6A/U81JKFc0fNI/AAAAAAAAI5s/vxhZd9JDbQE/s320/TalithaKum.jpg" /></a></div><b>What does “Talitha cumi” mean? Little girl, I say to you, arise (Mark 5:41)</b>
<p>The raising of Jairus’ daughter is chronicled in all three Synoptic gospels (Matthew 9:18-25; Mark 5:22-43; Luke 8:41-56). Jairus, a synagogue official, implores Jesus to come to his dying twelve-year old child (Matthew 9:18; Mark 5:22-23, 42; Luke 8:41-42). After Jesus is delayed by a hemorrhaging woman, the child is reported as dead (Matthew 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-35; Luke 8:43-49).
<p>Undeterred, Jesus dismisses mocking mourners (Matthew 9:23-25; Mark 9:39-40; Luke 8:52-53) and clears the room, leaving only three select disciples and the girl’s parents (Mark 9:37; Luke 9:51). He then takes the girl by the hand and instructs her to rise (Matthew 9:25; Mark 5:41; Luke 8:54). At Jesus’ command, Jairus’ daughter awakens (Matthew 9:25; Mark 5:42; Luke 8:55).
<p>Only Mark records the Aramaic words that Jesus speaks to the child (Mark 5:41).
<blockquote>Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, “Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). (Mark 5:41 NASB)</blockquote>
Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) characterizes:
<blockquote>The account is strikingly concrete. Even the words Jesus uses to awaken the girl as uttered in Aramaic—‘talitha cumi’—are still given in the Aramaic form by the Greek narrator [Mark 5:41]. There is nothing grandiose or theatrical. (Otto, <i>The Idea of the Holy</I>, 210)</blockquote>
In this story, the reader is especially indebted to the narrator (Mark 5:21-43). Holly E. Hearon (b. 1956) explains:
<blockquote>The narrator leads readers through the events of the story (e.g., “and when Jesus had crossed...” [Mark 5:21] and “one of the synagogue leaders came...” [Mark 5:22]). The narrator also describes the individual scenes in the story, making them visible to readers (e.g., “and a huge crowd was following and pressing him” [Mark 5:24]). In this way, the narrator controls what the reader sees. The narrator also controls what readers know by providing them with selected information about the characters (e.g., “there was a woman who had a flow of blood over the course of twelve years...” [Mark 5:25]) or filling in “gaps” in the reader’s general knowledge by, for example, translating unfamiliar phrases for the reader (“‘<i>Talitha koum</I> [ταλιθα κουμ], which is translated ‘Little girl, I tell you, rise’” [Mark 5:41]). This underscores the omniscience of the narrator and the dependence of the readers on the narrator for their encounter with the world of the story. (<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=91218 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kelly R. Iverson</a> [b. 1972] and <a href=http://www.christopherwskinner.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Christopher W. Skinner</a> [b. 1973], “From Narrative to Performance: Methodological Considerations and Interpretive Moves”, <i>Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect</I>, 227)</blockquote>
<a href=http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/kirsten-marie-hartvigsen(7734b484-7043-496d-bcdd-3de7c4068bfe).html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen</a> (b. 1973) focuses:
<blockquote>Because Mark 5:41 does not contain perceptual verbs, audience members may attribute the perception of Jesus’ interaction with the girl to the extradiegetic narrator. This event constitutes the final percolutionary effect of Mark 5:23, where Jairus urged Jesus to lay his hands on the girl. By taking the girl’s hand, Jesus acts according to her father’s earlier request. Jesus also utters a speech act. Jesus’ utterance constitutes a directive point with a declarative intent, ταλιθα κουμ (Mark 5:41).This speech act is in Aramaic, but the extradiegetic narrator seems to presuppose that not all audience members are able to understand this language. The utterance is therefore translated into Koiné Greek, τὸ κοράσιον, σοι λέγω, ἔγειρε; In this manner, all audience members are able to understand the meaning of Jesus’ speech act. (Hartvigsen, <i>Prepare the Way of the Lord: Towards a Cognitive Poetic Analysis of Audience Involvement with Characters and Events in the Markan World</i>, 245)</blockquote>
Jesus enters a somber scene and it is he who breaks the silence (Mark 5:41). Of all people, he speaks to the child! He does not command an illness or a demon, but rather the girl. He also does this in the other two biblical stories in which he raises the dead as he commands the widow of Nain’s son, “Young man, I say to you, arise!” (Luke 7:14 NASB) and instructs Lazarus, “Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:43 NASB). Some have speculated that the personal address is necessary lest all the dead rise at the command of the Lord (John 5:28).
<p>Jesus speaks to the girl in Aramaic which Mark preserves (Mark 5:41). Mark is the only canonical gospel which incorporates Aramaic into its Greek text. Raquel A. St. Clair (b. 1970) surveys:
<blockquote>Mark shows evidence of knowing both the sacred language (Hebrew) and common language (Aramaic) of first-century Jewish people. In Mark 7:11, the narrator transliterates and provides an interpretation for the Hebrew word <i>korban</I> (gift, offering). Likewise, in Mark 11:9-10, he transliterates the Hebrew <i>hosanna</I>. Moreover, there are five instances in which the narrator transliterates <i>and</I> translates Aramaic words or phrases (Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:22, 34). (St. Clair, <i>Call and Consequences: A Womanist Reading of Mark</I>, 87)</blockquote>
James A. Brooks (b. 1933) supports:
<blockquote>Mark and the oral tradition before him valued and preserved the Aramaic words Jesus used on this momentous occasion. Four instances of this are in Mark (also Mark 7:34, 14:36, 15:34), more than in any other Gospel and something that may indicate the primitiveness of Mark. Since the return from the Babylonian exile, Aramaic had been the language of the common people in Palestine. Jesus probably did most of his preaching and teaching in Aramaic. Therefore most if not all of his words in the Greek Gospels are a translation, and this fact is part of the reason the Gospels quote Jesus differently. Because Aramaic was not understood by Greek-speaking copyists of Mark’s Gospel, the textual witnesses vary in their reading at this point. (Brooks, <i>Mark (New American Commentary)</I>, 95)</blockquote>
Donald H. Juel (1942-2003) understands:
<blockquote>The use of Aramaic by Mark represents an appreciation of the aesthetic dimensions of narration. Mark’s audience does not know the foreign words; they require translation. On three other occasions Mark recalls Jesus’ words in his native Aramaic: once in another miracle story (Mark 7:34), once in recounting Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Mark 14:36), and finally in repeating Jesus’ sole word from the cross (Mark 15:34). The Aramaic gives the story a taste of authenticity and a mysterious feel. (Juel, ,<i>Mark (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 87)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.craddocksermons.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fred B. Craddock</a> (b. 1928) advises:
<blockquote>Instead of preaching from Mark, let Mark be our instructor in preaching. Mark actually uses some attractive, strange words. He uses some Aramaic words, and it makes you feel like you’re actually there. He says, <i>“Abba.”</I> [Mark 14:36] Do you remember what he said to Jairus’s daughter? <i>“Talitha koum.”</I> [Mark 5:41]. That’s striking, <i>Talitha koum</I>. (<a href=http://www.lipscomb.edu/bible/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dave Fleer</a> [b. 1953] and <a href=http://hst.edu/our-community/faculty/bland/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Dave Bland</a> [b. 1953], “The New Homiletic: Suggestions for Preaching from Mark”, <i>Preaching Mark’s Unsettling Messiah</I>, 23)</blockquote>
The linguistics contribute to the presentation of a powerful scene. <a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael Card</a> (b. 1957) observes:
<blockquote>By my count, there are seven people in the room; the three disciples, the two parents, Jesus and the dead girl. This is a dramatic moment in the Gospel of Mark. It is the first time we hear Jesus speaking in his native tongue of Aramaic: “Talitha koum [Mark 5:41].” It is tender, as his words to the bleeding woman were tender [Mark 5:34]. “Little girl, I say to you get up!” [Mark 5:41] (Card, <i>Mark: The Gospel of Passion (<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/#/biblical-imagination STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Biblical Imagination Series</a>)</i>, 79)</blockquote>
Most scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic. This means that Mark preserves the only direct quotes from Jesus’ earthy life (Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34). In doing so, Mark provides a rare glimpse into the unfiltered Jesus.
<p>Géza Vermès (1924-2013) determines:
<blockquote>There can be little doubt that Jesus himself spoke Galilean Aramaic, the language, that is to say, surviving in the popular and somewhat more recent paraphrase of the Pentateuch, the Palestinian Targum, and in the Talmud of Palestine. Practically all the terms which the Synoptic Gospels preserve in Aramaic before rendering them in Greek point in that direction. In the command addressed to the daughter of Jairus, <i>Talitha kum</I> [Mark 5:41], ‘Get up, my child,’ the noun (literally, ‘little lamb’) is attested only in the Palestinian Targum. Another Aramaic word, <i>mamona</I>, ‘money’, used in the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 6:24, mostly occurs in the Targums. The rabbis, even in Aramaic phrases, usually employ the Hebrew word, <i>mamon</I>. Targumic parallel is similarly decisive in determining that when Jesus said <i>Ephphetha</I> [Mark 7:34], ‘Be opened’, he spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew. (Vermès, <i>Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels</I>, 53)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Stein</a> (b. 1935) opines:
<blockquote>The Semitic expression “Talitha koum” (cf. Mark 3:17, 22, 7:11, 34, 9:43, 10:46, 14:36, 15:22, 34; Matthew 5:22, 6:24; John 1:42, which means, “Little girl...arise” (Τὸ κοράσιον...ἒγειρε, <i>To korasion</i>...<i>egeire</I>; cf. Mark 12:26, 16:6), suggests, among other things, that Jesus’s mother tongue was Aramaic (<a href=http://theology.nd.edu/people/faculty/john-p-meier/>John P. Meier</a> [b. 1942] 1991:255-68). The Greek translation that follows (and, of course, the whole Gospel) reveals that the native language of Mark’s readers is Greek. The Aramaic expressions found in Mark do not function as magical incantations (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/religious_studies/pages/gundry.html? STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Gundry</a> [b. 1932] 1993:274-75; contra Gerard Mussies [b. 1934] 1984:427). Even less do they serve as secret “gnostic” formulas, since they are openly stated along with their interpretations. Nor are they used “to demonstrate the superior power of eastern words of healing” (<a href=http://www.theologie.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaet/personen/theissen.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gerd Thiessen</a> [b. 1943] 1983:254), since the expressions in Mark are used mostly in nonmiracle settings (cf. Mark 3:17, 7:11, 14:36, 15:34; also Matthew 5:22, 6:24; John 1:42). (Only two Aramaic expressions are found in the setting of a healing miracle, here and Mark 7:34.) It is best to understand that these expressions as remnants of the Aramaic traditions with which Mark was familiar (Joachim Gnilka [b. 1928] 1978:211). In their abbreviations of Mark, Matthew and Luke omit them (except for Matthew 27:46). (Stein, <i>Mark (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 274-75)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.stmarytx.edu/academics/humanities/undergraduate/theology/theology-faculty/bernard-lee/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bernard J. Lee</a> (b. 1932) acknowledges:
<blockquote>Because our earliest texts are Greek, we are not certain about the original words in any single thing that Jesus said, with the possible exception of an occasional phrase actually transmitted in Aramaic, such as <i>Abba</I> [Mark 14:36] (the intimate form of “Father”); <i>Talitha Kum</I> [Mark 5:41] (“Little girl, arise!”); and <i>Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani</I> [Mark 15:34] (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”). That is not thick enough history to recover the full throated voice of Jesus. The early quest for the historical Jesus indicated the futility of seeking the original words, the <i>verba ipsissima</I> of Jesus. (Lee, <i>The Galilean
Jewishness of Jesus: Retrieving the Jewish Origins of Christianity</I>, 53)</blockquote>
Critical scholarship is not universally convinced of the Aramaic’s authenticity. <a href=http://apps.sebts.edu/FacultyInfo/FacultyPage.cfm?id=)%23*W%22R_%5B%2FJJ!%3F%0A&type=F STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Charles Leland Quarles</a> (b. 1965) reports:
<blockquote>The Fellows of the <a href=http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jesus Seminar</a>...rightly acknowledge that “Jesus undoubtedly employed the term ‘Abba’ (Aramaic for ‘Father’) to address God [Mark 14:36].” They did reject the authenticity of the Aramaic words which appeared in Mark 5:41 and Mark 7:34. Though the Aramaic forms normally suggested authenticity, the Gospel writer had used the Aramaic term to make an ordinary command sound like a magical formula to the ear of the Greek-speaker. (<a href=http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=187 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Bruce Chilton</a> [b. 1949] and <a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig A. Evans</a> [b. 1952], “The Authenticity of the Parable of the Warring King: A Response to the Jesus Seminar”, <i>Authenticating the Words of Jesus</I>, 419)</blockquote>
Though exact quotations from Jesus are scarce, this does not detract from the New Testament’s witness. <a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/gregg-allison/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gregg R. Allison</a> (b. 1954) and <a href=http://faculty.biola.edu/michael-anthony/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Michael J. Anthony</a> (b. 1953) clarify:
<blockquote><i>The truthfulness of all of Scripture does not mean that the New Testament sayings of Jesus contain the exact words of Jesus.</I> If Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic...then few of the actual words of Jesus are found in the New Testament. Indeed, there are only two phrases of Jesus in Aramaic: “<i>Talitha cumi</I>” (“Little girl, I say to you, arise!”; Mark 5:41) and “<i>Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani</I>?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15:34; see Matthew 27:46). Instead of the exact words of Jesus, the New Testament contains the exact voice of Jesus. (James R. Estep, Jr. [b. 1963], Anthony and Allison, “Revelation, Scripture, and Christian Education”, <i>A Theology for Christian Education</I>, 85)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/faculty-member?id=66 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Azumah</a> (b. 1962) assesses:
<blockquote>Some fragments of the original Aramaic have..been preserved...However such Aramaic fragments are the exceptions that prove the rule and it is clear that what the early Christians identified as being of the greatest significance in Jesus was not the original words and syllables spoken by him. The heart of the matter lay elsewhere, in who Jesus was, in what he had done, in his ongoing risen presence. (<a href=https://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/david-marshall STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David Marshall</a> [b. 1963], “The Divine and Human Origins of the Bible: Exodus 32:15-16; Jeremiah 1:9; II Timothy 3:16-17; Luke 1:1-4; I Corinthians 7:10-17; Mark 5:41”, <i>Communicating the Word: Revelation, Translation, and Interpretation in Christianity and Islam</I>, 95-96)</blockquote>
Jesus’ words and deeds are not mutually exclusive. Christopher D. Marshall (b. 1953) observes:
<blockquote>In some respects Jesus’ words and deeds are virtually interchangeable in Mark. Just as his words of command are imbued with power to bring about their own realisation (e.g. Mark 1:27, 41, 4:39, 5:41, 9:25ff, 11:14, etc.), so his actions are infused with didactic power that qualifies them as preaching (Mark 1:39) and teaching (Mark 1:27, 8:14-21). (Marshall, <i>Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative</i>, 39)</blockquote>
English translations render the Greek in English but retain the Aramaic through transliteration, effectively making it as foreign to the contemporary reader as it was to her ancient counterpart (Mark 5:41): “Talitha koum” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT), “Talitha cumi” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV), “Talitha cum” (NRSV), “Talitha kum” (NASB) or “Tal’itha cu’mi” (RSV). The fact that Mark feels the need to translate the expression is telling, much like a foreign film necessitates subtitles.
<p>Such explanatory clauses are typical of Mark’s gospel. <a href=http://religious.gmu.edu/people/wshiner STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Whitney Shiner</a> (b. 1949) documents:
<blockquote>In a number of places Mark provides explanations to his listeners. He translated foreign words (Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:22, 15:34), provides “explanations” of Jewish practices (Mark 7:3-4), comments on the emotional cause of actions (“they were frightened,” Mark 9:6; “for they were afraid,” Mark 16:8), a natural cause (there are no figs on the tree because “it was not the time for figs,” Mark 11:13), and an occupational reason for action (Simon and Andrew were “throwing nets in the sea—because they were fishermen,” Mark 1:16). (Shiner, <i>Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark</i>, 176)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/religious_studies/pages/gundry.html? STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) expounds:
<blockquote>Willem S. Vorster [1941-1993] (in <i>Neotestamentica</I> 14 [1981] 68) observes that Mark uses and translates foreign (i.e. Aramaic) words and phrases to put across his narrative point of view — here [Mark 5:41], for emphasis on the power of Jesus’ word to raise even the dead. In only one other instance does the Aramaic plus translation have to do with a miracle (Mark 7:34), whereas in a number of other instances it has nothing to do with miracles (see Mark 3:17, 7:11, 14:36; and especially Mark 15:22, 34, where we read the same formula ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, “which is translated,” i.e. “which means when translated”) — a point that weakens the suggestion that the Aramaic originally lacked a translation, that the following command to silence originally referred to keeping the Aramaic secret as a foreign magical formula...and that Mark added a translation with the result that it is now the miracle itself which needs to be kept secret (Joachim Gnilka [b. 1928] 1.211-12; cf. Mark 10:46, where Mark makes the Aramaic appositional to its preceding translation; Mark 11:9-10, where “hosanna” lacks a translatable prayer into a hardly translatable exclamation). (Gundry, <i>Mark, Volume 1 (1-8): A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross</I>, 284)</blockquote>
Jesus says, “Talita kum” (Mark 5:41). C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) dissects:
<blockquote>Ταλιθα χουμ, A transliteration of Aramaic <i>telîtā kûm</I>, of which the first word is the feminine of <i>talyā’</I> (=‘lamb’ or ‘youth’) and the second is the Mesopotamian form of the imperative ‘arise’. Α D Θ f13 <i>pm</I> lat syphs have the Palestinian form of the feminine imperative <i>kûmî</I>. It is not at all clear which form Mark wrote. (<a href=http://www.mj-lagrange.org/?lang=en STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marie-Joseph Lagrange</a> [1855-1938], Vincent Taylor [1887-1968] prefer χουμ; Ernst Lohmeyer [1890–1946] χουμι.) (Cranfield, <i>The Gospel According to St Mark: An Introduction and Commentary</I>, 190)</blockquote>
Talitha is a term of endearment (Mark 5:41). The affectionate word literally means “little lamb”; like Mary, Jesus has a little lamb. <a href=http://scs.georgetown.edu/departments/17/sacred-scripture/faculty-bio.cfm?a=a&fId=174728 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John R. Donahue</a> (b. 1933) and Daniel J. Harrington (1940-2014) gloss:
<blockquote>In Aramaic this phrase literally means “little lamb, arise”; the word “lamb” (<i>talitha</I> can be a term of affection, especially for a young child (see II Samuel 12:1-6). (Donahue and Harrington, <i>Mark (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 178)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.whitworth.edu/academic/faculty/index.aspx?username=jedwards STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">James R. Edwards</a> (b. 1945) comments:
<blockquote>The Greek translation, “little girl,” is endearing. The word <i>korasion</I>, a diminutive of <i>korē</I> (a stately young woman or maiden), indicates prime childhood, perhaps “little lady.” Such nomenclature reveals the vast difference in Jesus’ perspective of the girl from the mourners’ perspective [Mark 5:38-40]. (Edwards, <i>The Gospel according to Mark (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 167-68)</blockquote>
In tenderly touching her and his choice of words (Mark 5:41), Jesus gives Jairus’ daughter permission to be a child again.
<p>This type of language is customary in Mark. Bonnie Bowman Thurston (b. 1952) notes:
<blockquote>Diminutives are characteristic of Mark’s style; see Mark 5:41-42, 6:22, 28, 7:27-28; and so forth. (Thurston, <i>Preaching Mark (Fortress Resources for Preaching</I>, 67)</blockquote>
Richard Schneck (b. 1941) contends that <i>talitha</i> alludes to Isaiah’s poetic description of Israel’s future shepherd who “gathers the lambs with his arm and in his bosom he will carry them” (Isaiah 40:11; Mark 6:34). That long awaited shepherd destined to lead Israel out of exile has arrived. (Schneck , <i>Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I-VIII</i>, 137-138).
<p>There has been some speculation that Talitha is a proper noun. Max Wilcox (1927-2010) argues:
<blockquote>It seems strange that anyone should have addressed an unconscious (or dead) person as “girl” and not by her own name. The context is thoroughly Jewish, the girl’s father has a Jewish name (Jairus=<i>Ya’ir</I>) [Mark 5:22, 35, 36], and he is a synagogue ruler [Mark 5:22, 35, 36, 38]. If his name is given, why not that of the daughter? Further the Greek manuscripts and the versions have problems in Mark 5:41. The best attested reading is <i>Talitha koum</I>, but at first sight that seems to make the verb masculine (<i>qwm</I>) instead of feminine (<i>qwmy</I>). The other three sets of readings all look like attempts to make sense of the matter by seeing in <i>talitha</I> (or in their equivalents of it) a proper name. Thus all make both subject and verb explicitly feminine. The problem could be solved if (1) <i>talitha</I> could be documented as a proper name and not just an Aram word meaning “girl,” and (2) if in the spoken language the final <i>yod</I> in feminine form <i>qwmy</I> were silent as in the corresponding Syriac. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], <i>Anchor Bible Dictionary</I>, 6:309-10)</blockquote>
Though this is not impossible, the fact that Mark translates talitha as a noun rather than a proper name seems to indicate that Talitha is not the child’s name.
<p>There is variation in the ancient manuscripts regarding the verb Jesus uses (Mark 5:41). This discrepancy is reflected in contemporary translations which read either <i>koum</i> (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) or <i>koumi</i> (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV).
<p><a href=http://home.comcast.net/~gcaichele/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George Aichele</a> (b. 1944) admits:
<blockquote>The apparatus to the Eberhard Nestle [1851-1913] <i>et al.</I> (1979) of the Greek New Testament indicates that <i>talitha koum</I> is the best attested spelling of the transliterated phrase in Mark 5:41, but there is also evidence among the ancient manuscripts of Mark for <i>talitha koumi</I> and <i>talitha koum(i)</I>. The fifth-century codex D, famous for its Aramaic transliterations into Greek, has <i>rabbi thabita</I> (= <i>rhabotha</I>) <i>koumi</I>. (Aichele, <i>Jesus Framed</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Ezra Palmer Gould (1841-1900) distinguishes:
<blockquote>κούμ is the Hebrew imperative כים. κουμι of the Textus Receptus is the proper feminine form. κούμ is the masculine used as an interjection. (Gould, <i>The Gospel According to St. Mark (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 101)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ubs-translations.org/fileadmin/publications/tbt/practical/BT-61-4-Omanson.pdf STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert G. Bratcher</a> (1920-2010) and <a href=http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/news/794-eugene-nida-dies/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene A. Nida</a> (1914-2011) add:
<blockquote>Instead of the masculine form <i>koum</I> of the great majority of modern editions of the Greek text, <i>Textus Receptus</I>, Alexander Souter [1873-1949] (and RSV) have the feminine form <i>koumi</I> (cf. the discussion on <a href=http://www.mj-lagrange.org/?lang=en STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Marie-Joseph Lagrange</a> [1855-1938]). (Bratcher and Nida, <i>A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark</I>, 180)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.mwrc.ac.uk/brower/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Kent Brower</a> (b. 1946) rationalizes:
<blockquote>There are several variants of the Aramaic phrase <i>talitha koum</I>, probably due to the unfamiliarity of copyists with Aramaic. Some texts read <i>tabitha</I>, a confusion from the name in Acts 9:40. The variation between <i>koum</I> and <i>koumi</I> is due to gender in Aramaic. Thus <i>koum</I> is masculine but is used here without reference to gender. But <i>koumi</I> is imperative feminine singular and is probably a later correction (R.T. France [1938-2012] 2002, 234 n. 41). The earliest text is likely <i>talitha koum</I>. (Brower, <i>Mark: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary)</I>, 157)</blockquote>
Alfred Edersheim (1825-1899) footnotes:
<blockquote>The reading which accordingly seems best is that adopted by Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] and Fenton John Anthony Hort [1828-1892], Ταλειθά κούμ. The Aramaic or Rabbinic for maiden is either <i>Talyetha</I> or <i>Talyutha</I> (טליוחא). In the second Targum on Esther 2:7,8, the reading is טלוחא (<i>Talutha</I>), where Jean de Léry [1536-1613] conjectures the reading טליחא (<i>Talitha</I>), or else <i>Talyetha</I>. The latter seems also the proper equivalent of ταλειθά, while the reading ‘Talitha’ is uncertain. As regards the second word, <i>qum</I> [pronounced <i>kum</I>], most writers have...shown that it should be <i>qumi</I>, not <i>qum</I>. Nevertheless, the same command is spelt קומ in the Talmud (as it is pronounced in Syriac) when a <i>woman</I> is addressed. In Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 110<i>b</i>, the command <i>qum</I>, as addressed to a woman suffering from a bloody flux, occurs not less than seven times in one page. (<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Craig A. Evans</a> [b. 1952], “The Healing of the Woman – Christ’s Personal Appearance – The Raising of Jairus’ Daughter”, <i>The Historical Jesus, Volume IV: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies</I>, 84)</blockquote>
<p><a href=http://divinity.yale.edu/collins-0 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Adela Yarbro Collins</a> (b. 1945) preserves:
<blockquote>Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918] argued that the original reading was ραβιθα (“girl”), which he reconstructed from the corrupt reading of Codex D, rather than ταλιθα (“girl”), because the latter word is more refined and less dialectical and thus a correction. He also argued that κουμι (“koumi,” i.e. “arise” or “stand up”), read by Codex D, is original, as the Old Palestinian form of the second person singular feminine imperative; he considered κουμ (“koum,” i.e., “arise or “stand up”) to be a later Mesopotamian form. (Collins, <i>Mark (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible)</i>, 285)</blockquote>
This grammar could be an indicator of Jesus’ accent. Géza Vermès (1924-2013) supposes:
<blockquote>It may also be presumed that like Peter, whose northern identity betrayed his speech [Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59], Jesus also spoke the Galilean dialect of Aramaic. His command addressed to the ‘dead’ daughter of Jairus is reproduced as <i>Talitha kum</I> (‘Little girl’, or literally, ‘Little lamb, get up’) in the oldest codices of Mark 5:41. But <i>kum</I> represents Galilean slovenly speech in joining the masculine form of the imperative to a feminine subject, as against the grammatically correct <i>kumi</I> which we find in some of the more recent and polished manuscripts of the Gospel. (Vermès, <i>The Changing Faces of Jesus</I>, ccl)</blockquote>
Mark translates “talitha” for its Greek speaking readers as “Little girl” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “Damsel” (ASV, KJV).
<p><a href=http://archives.sbts.edu/special-collections/archibald-thomas-robertson-papers/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A.T. Robertson</a> (1863-1934) compares:
<blockquote>Mark uses the diminutive κοράσιον, a little girl, from κόρη, girl. Luke 8:54 has it ‘Η παις, ἔγειρε, “Maiden, arise.” (Robertson, <i>The Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Mark (Word Pictures in the New Testament)</I>, 307-08)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/religious_studies/pages/gundry.html? STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) notices:
<blockquote>In talking <i>about</I> her, Jesus called her “the little <i>child</I> (Mark 5:39). In talking <i>to</I> her he affectionately calls her “Little <i>girl</I>” [Mark 5:41]. (Gundry, <i>Commentary on Mark</I>)</blockquote>
Jesus bids the girl to arise (Mark 5:41). R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) documents:
<blockquote><a href=http://archives.sbts.edu/special-collections/archibald-thomas-robertson-papers/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">A.T. Robertson</a> [1863-1934] 1215 claims that the aorist imperative ἔγειραι does not appear in the New Testament, and that we should read here the present imperative ἔγειρε, “be arising.” Either could be used; the question is one for the text critics to decide. (Lenski, <i>The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel</I>, 231)</blockquote>
This is far from a rude awakening; Jesus meets Jairus’ daughter on her own level in a language she understands. The child has likely heard the command, “Little girl, get up!” many times throughout her life.
<p>Ralph Earle (1908-1995) conjectures:
<blockquote>It has been suggested that these may have been the very words with which the little girl was wakened by her mother each morning. Here we see the human tenderness of Christ, as well as His divine power. What a beautiful combination! (Earle, <i>Mark: The Gospel of Action (Everyman’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 53)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/dlmckenna1 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David L. McKenna</a> (b. 1929) praises:
<blockquote><i>“Talitha, cumi”</I> is an invitation of love that literally means, “Little lamb, arise.” Jesus’ authority, tough with wild winds and raging demons, becomes as tender as a shepherd lifting the littlest of lambs. (McKenna, <i>Mark (Preacher’s Commentary)</I>, 116)</blockquote>
Some interpreters have contrasted the provocative vocatives that Jesus uses in relation to the two women he heals in the chapter (Mark 5:22-43). Jesus calls the hemorrhaging woman “daughter” (Mark 5:34) while referring to Jairus’ daughter as “little girl” (Mark 5:41).
<p>Bas M.F. van Iersel (1924-1999) interprets:
<blockquote>The privileged position of the girl is reversed in the combination of the two stories. Though the father is the first to appear on the scene and Jesus decides to oblige him, he actually helps the woman first: the inferior is given precedence, the first will be last and the last the first; but there is more at issue than order. The woman who has no one to fall back on is addressed by Jesus as ‘daughter’ [Mark 5:34], and is thereby shown to belong to the new family of Jesus. The daughter of Jairus, though, is addressed as ‘talitha’ [Mark 5:34], which is explicitly translated into the Greek κοράσιον, which mean ‘girl’. (Iersel, <i>Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary</i>, 212)</blockquote>
While Mark intentionally juxtaposes the two stories (Mark 5:21-43), Jesus describes both women in intimate terms (Mark 5:34, 41). Reading <i>talitha</i> as a slight does a disservice to the text and to Jesus. Jairus’ daughter need not be maligned for the hemorrhaging woman to be elevated.
<p>When translating Jesus’ Aramaic, Mark actually adds the interjection “I say yo you” (Mark 5:41). R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) recognizes:
<blockquote>In his translation Mark adds, “I say to thee,” which is merely interpretive. (Lenski, <i>The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel</I>, 231)</blockquote>
Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) critiques:
<blockquote>The Aramaic here hardly justifies the insertion of ‘I say unto thee.’ As in Mark 3:17 and Mark 15:34, the rendering given by Mark raises questions. (Plummer, <i>The Gospel According to St. Mark</I>, 66)</blockquote>
Though not in Jesus’ words, “I say to you” conveys tone and indicates the unique authority of the speaker (Mark 5:41). This authority is also underscored by his verb tense.
<p><a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/religious_studies/pages/gundry.html? STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) gathers:
<blockquote>Mark’s quoting Jesus’ original Aramaic, introducing it with the present tense in “he <i>says</I> to her,” and inserting “I’m telling you” into the translation accentuate the empowering command [Mark 5:41]. (Gundry, <i>Commentary on Mark</I>)</blockquote>
Jesus’ words are markedly prosaic. The Aramaic is simple; Jesus does resort to language that makes him sound especially religious.
<p>Dick France (1938-2012) updates:
<blockquote>The words ‘Talitha cum’ (in the vernacular Aramaic) are remarkably low-key: ‘talitha’ is literally a young sheep or goat but was used colloquially for a child, and ‘cum’ simply means ‘Get up’. So ‘Get up, kid!’ is an idiomatic equivalent. (France, <i>Mark (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer)</I>, 81)</blockquote>
Scottish Canadian William Wye Smith (1827-1917) renders the phrase, “Lassie, wauken” (Smith, <i>The New Testament in Braid Scots</I>, 49).
<p><a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">David E. Garland</a> (b. 1947) remarks:
<blockquote><i>Talitha koum</I> is an ordinary Aramaic phrase made memorable by the extraordinary miracle. (<a href=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/clinton_arnold/>Clinton E. Arnold</a> [b. 1958], <i>Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 36)</blockquote>
N.T. Wright (b. 1948) evaluates:
<blockquote>What’s so special about these words? Why leave them untranslated, along with only a handful of others (like ‘Abba’ in the Gethsemane scene, Mark 14:36)? The best answer is probably that the scene, and the crucial words, made such a deep impression on Peter and the others that whenever they told the story afterwards, even in Greek to non-Jewish audiences, they kept the crucial words as they were. It wasn’t a magic formula, a kind of ‘abracadabra’; they were ordinary words you might use to wake up a sleeping child. But part of the point of the <b>gospel</b> story, and of this whole section of Mark, is precisely that the life-giving power of God is breaking into and working through the ordinary details of life. (Wright, <i>Mark for Everyone</I>, 63-64)</blockquote>
The entire scene is wrought with simplicity (Mark 5:35-43). <a href=http://www.abingdonpress.com/m_eugene_boring STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">M. Eugene Boring</a> (b. 1935) appraises:
<blockquote>Jesus does not pray, engages in no rituals, has no “technique”—he only touches and speaks, and the girl is raised [Mark 5:41]...Even the Aramaic phrase, foreign to Mark’s Greek-speaking readers, is no magic word, but when translated is seen to be the simple speech anyone could employ in waking someone from sleep. By translating the phrase, Mark removes the story from the world of magic and focuses on the authority of Jesus that cannot be resisted even by the power of death. (Boring, <i>Mark: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</I>, 162)</blockquote>
There is discussion as to what Mark’s inclusion of Aramaic accomplishes. <a href=http://home.comcast.net/~gcaichele/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George Aichele</a> (b. 1944) concedes:
<blockquote>A Greek transliteration, <i>talitha koum</I>, of Jesus’s Aramaic words appears in Mark 5:41. Since the transliterated words are immediately translated into Greek, <i>to korasion, soi legô, egeire</I>, they serve no informative function in the text. Either the reader knows Aramaic and the transliteration is unnecessary, or the reader does not know Aramaic and the transliteration plays no role in the story, except perhaps to add an exotic quality. A similar transliteration/translation combination appears in Mark 7:34 – “and [Jesus] looked up into the sky and groaned and said to him: Ephphatha, which means: Be opened.” Other comparable transliteration/translation combinations appear at Mark 3:17, where the nickname “Boanerges” is translated as “sons of thunder,” and Mark 7:11, where “Corban” is translated as “gift to God.” Unlike Mark 5:41 and 7:34, these latter instances are not elements of healing stories...Why these transliterated words are included in Mark’s text along with translations of the words is not clear. All four of the transliteration/translation combinations appear in Mark in the direct discourse of Jesus. Each is an oddity which disrupts the text: in each case, the translation which accompanies the transliterated words enables them to be understood, but the function of the transliterated phrase itself is not clear. In fact, the transliteration seems to serve no purpose. No deep narrative structure accounts for this surface effect, nor does the transliterated phrase appear to have any particular theological significance. It is significant that all of the respective parallels to these passages in Matthew (Matthew 9:25, 15:30, 10:2, 15:5, 26:39), Luke (Luke 8:54, 6:14, 22:42), and John (John 12:27) omit the transliterations. (Aichele, <i>Jesus Framed</I>, 57-58)</blockquote>
Many scholars presume that Mark was the first gospel written and if so, it might be significant that Matthew and Luke redact the Aramaic from their accounts (Matthew 9:18-25; Luke 8:41-56).
<p>There may be a grammatical rationale for the discarding of the Aramaic. <a href=http://rexweyler.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rex Weyler</a> (b. 1947) considers:
<blockquote><i>Matthew</i> and <i>Luke</I> often disagree about the sequence of events in the life of Jesus, but generally follow Mark’s chronology when they do agree, suggesting that they both used <i>Mark</I> as a reference. <i>Mark</i>’s language appears earlier and closer to Aramaic. For example, the account of Jesus healing a child in Gerasenes (Mark 5:41) identifies a “little girl” by the Aramaic word <i>talitha</I>. <i>Luke</I> and <i>Matthew</I> appear to fix up or simplify confusing syntax in <i>Mark</i>’s more primitive style, and scholars doubt the <i>Mark</I> author would copy a simple construction by making it more convoluted. (Weyler, <i>The Jesus Sayings: The Quest for His Authentic Message</I>, 89)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.regent.edu/acad/schdiv/faculty/twelftree/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Graham H. Twelftree</a> (b. 1950) deliberates:
<blockquote>Matthew removes Jesus’ special words of healing in his source (<i>talitha koum</I>, Mark 5:41/Matthew 9:25). It is not that this would have been understood as magical. Rather, Matthew wants nothing to be seen as effective in healing other than Jesus himself. Also, in light of his didactic intention, Matthew would want to convey to his readers that in their emulation of Jesus’ healing ministry they are not to rely on anything other than the power of Jesus. (Twelftree, <i>Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study</I>, 119)</blockquote>
Mark is traditionally regarded as Peter’s memoirs and many attribute the Aramaic to it having left an indelible impression on the spectators (Mark 5:37). This is the first time that Jesus raises someone from the dead and that milestone would presumably be unforgettable.
<p><a href=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/academics/view-faculty-member.cfm?faculty_id=15920&grp_id=8948 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Rodney L. Cooper</a> (b. 1953) surmises:
<blockquote>Mark’s Gospel is the only one that uses these Aramaic words. This is probably because this account of Jesus’ miracle came directly to Mark from the apostle Peter. Peter was impressed with Jesus’ tenderness, his lack of concern about the purity laws, and his power. (Cooper, <i>Mark (Holman New Testament Commentary)</I>, 89)</blockquote>
R. Alan Cole (1923-2003) concurs:
<blockquote>His words to the girl, <i>Talitha cumi</I>, in her own Aramaic mother tongue...are preserved in Mark alone [Mark 5:41]. If, as tradition has it and internal evidence may in part at least support, Peter was Mark’s informant, then the scene must have made such an impression upon the three apostles present that the actual words of Jesus were remembered long after [Mark 5:37]. (Cole, <i>Mark (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries)</i>, 165)</blockquote>
It cannot be denied that the Aramaic has impact. <a href=http://eaglechristianchurch.com/index.php?page=staff STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Steven A. Crane</a> (b. 1964) perceives:
<blockquote>Aramaic was the language of Jesus. Koine Greek, or common Greek, was the language of commerce. Mark translates it for a Roman audience, and for us. “Little girl, I say yo you, get up!” [Mark 5:41] Why give us the Aramaic? Possibly for emphasis. It creates a dramatic effect for the listeners (and for us). (Crane, <i>Marveling with Mark: A Homiletical Commentary on the Second Gospel</i>, 101)</blockquote>
Donald H. Juel (1942-2003) analyzes:
<blockquote>There is something mysterious about the words, and their mere presence suggests some distance from Jesus—who did, in fact, speak another language. Readers experience some sense of distance from the events while at the same time experiencing the power of the story...The Aramaic words have the greatest impact when the story is read aloud. (Juel, <i>Gospel of Mark (Interpreting Biblical Texts Series)</I>, 116)</blockquote>
A friend or pastor might have offered words of consolation to the pained parents. But Jesus does not enter the home as merely a counselor, pastor or friend. Jesus appears as a savior, and it is as the little girl’s savior that he speaks (Mark 5:41).
<p><a href=http://drjohnphillips.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">John Phillips</a> (1927-2010) marvels:
<blockquote>Two words and the soul is snatched from the maw of the old lion, death [Mark 5:41]. The child’s pale cheeks blushed red with new life. Her eyelids fluttered. She opened her eyes, saw Jesus, and sat up! Just like that! (Phillips, <i>Exploring the Gospel of Mark</I>, 128)</blockquote>
What Jesus says is not as important as the fact that what is done is accomplished simply through speech (Mark 5:41). In raising Jairus’ daughter, Jesus’ humanity is on display in the tenderness of his words while his divinity is featured in their power. The raising of Jairus’ daughter serves as a reminder of the infinite capacity of what the Almighty can do. Jesus can speak to the dead; even death cannot separate us from Jesus’ love (Romans 8:38-39).
<p>Other voices abound in Jairus’ house. The hopeless wails of professional mourners and those mocking the newly arrived savior ring out as well (Mark 5:38-40). In their midst, the one true voice is unfamiliar to the child (Mark 5:41). Yet Jesus’ words are the only ones remembered verbatim. His words still reverberate; they are the lasting ones. May we listen only to that voice which invites us to live, which demands we get up and do what we are called to do.
<p><font color="#66CD00">Why does Mark retain Jesus’ Aramaic when raising Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41)? What impact does the injection of Jesus’ native language have on your reading of the story? Why did the other gospel writers not preserve the Aramaic? What does utilizing Greek at the expense of the original Aramaic say about what mattered most to the early church about Jesus? With what accent do you hear Jesus speaking? Presuming that he does not, why Jesus not address Jairus’ daughter by name? Is “talitha” an appropriate designation for a twelve-year old girl (Mark 5:42)? What terms of endearment do you use? What would you want Jesus to call you? From what occasions do you remember an exact quote? What would have happened if the girl had listened to the other voices instead of the call of Christ? To whose voice are you listening?</font>
<p>Many commentators have equated Jesus’ exotic words with magical incantations (Mark 5:41). <a href=http://divinity.yale.edu/collins-0 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Adela Yarbro Collins</a> (b. 1945) writes:
<blockquote>It is noteworthy...that the only words of Jesus that the evangelist gives in Aramaic in this context are the powerful words by which, in part, Jesus raised the girl from the dead [Mark 5:41]. The implication is that, for Greek speakers in the audience, the Aramaic words were in themselves perceived to be mysterious and powerful. Lucian of Samosata [125-180] satirizes the use of holy names and foreign phrases in healing by having one of his characters ask whether the fever or inflammation is afraid of them and so takes flight. (Collins, <i>Mark (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible)</i>, 285-86)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/joel-marcus STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joel Marcus</a> (b. 1951) explicates:
<blockquote>The retention of Aramaic here is partly for effect: the exotic foreign words increase the sense of mystery about the miracle that is about to occur. Cf. Lucian of Samosata [125-180]’s reference to the tendency of faith healers to use <i>rhēsis barbarikē</I>, “foreign language” (<i>False Philosopher</I> 9). The only other healing story in which Jesus’ words are rendered in Aramaic is the narrative about the deaf-mute in Mark 7:31-37; in both cases, as Gerard Mussies [b. 1934] (“The Use of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek New Testament,” 427) points out, the Aramaic words are the verbal counterpart to the non-verbal healing action...and in both cases the healing takes place in seclusion. The combination of the motifs of seclusion and mysterious words is probably not accidental; <a href=http://www.theologie.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaet/personen/theissen.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gerd Thiessen</a> [b. 1943] (140-42, 148-49) notes that in the magical papyri, injunctions to silence frequently occur before or after occult formulae, in order to guard their secrecy (<i>Papyri Graecae Magicae</I>, 1.40, 130, 146-47, etc.). Also strikingly parallel to our narrative is Philostratus [170-247]’s story of the resuscitation of a dead girl by Apollonius of Tyana: “He simply touched her and said some secret words to her and woke her from seeing death” (<i>Life Apollonius of Tyana</I> 4.45). Not only does this tale share with ours the motif of secret words, but it also includes the pattern of the healer touching a dead girl and thus “awakening” her. The combination of motifs is so close that it is hard not to agree with Rudolf Pesch [1936-2011] (1.310) that our story reproduces typical techniques of ancient faith healing. (<a href=http://theology.nd.edu/people/faculty/john-p-meier/>John P. Meier</a> [b. 1942] [<i>Marginal Jew</I>, 2.580] raises the possibility that Philostratus is plagiarizing the Gospels, but admits that he cannot establish the probability of this assumption. (Marcus, <i>Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 363)</blockquote>
William L. Lane (1931-1999) counters:
<blockquote>The retention of Aramaic formulae in Marcan healing contexts (Mark 5:41, 7:34) has led to the conjecture that, analogous to pagan custom, the early Christians commonly believed in the efficacy of esoteric utterances composed of foreign or incomprehensible words. There is no support for this proposal either in Mark or in the subsequent tradition. The evangelist retains Aramaic with translation in other contexts unrelated to healing. Moreover, there is no evidence that “Talitha cumi” [Mark 5:41] or “Ephphatha” [Mark 7:34] were ever used by Christian healers as a magic spell. Their presence in the narrative reflects a faithfulness to the tradition that Jesus had actually spoken these words on specific occasions. (Lane, <i>The Gospel of Mark (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 197-98)</blockquote>
<a href=http://hst.edu/our-community/faculty/black/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Allen Black</a> (b. 1951) dismisses:
<blockquote>Some argue that Mark preserves the Aramaic here and in the healing at Mark 7:34 as examples of foreign words used as magical incantations (similar to “abracadabra”). However, Mark’s translation of the Aramaic weighs against that understanding. So does the fact that most of Mark’s uses of Aramaic terms are not connected with working miracles (Mark 3:17, 7:11, 11:9-10, 14:36, 15:22, 34). (Black, <i>Mark (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 108)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.uclouvain.be/31843.html STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Camille Focant</a> (b. 1946) agrees:
<blockquote>Although it is expressed in a foreign language, the expression “<i>Talitha koum</I>” uses quite ordinary words in the Aramaic language [Mark 5:41]. It therefore can certainly not be considered as a sort of “magic word” (contra Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], <i>The History of the Synoptic Tradition</I>, 214; with Simon Légasse [1926-2009], 1:350). However, in quoting the words of Jesus in Aramaic before giving their translation in Greek, the narrator draws attention to the expression, as if he was highlighting it. In the Greek translation he adds, “I say to you,” which emphasizes the commitment of Jesus in this word. It is a performative word that must realize what it states. (Focant, <i>The Gospel according to Mark: A Commentary</I>, 214)</blockquote>
<p><a href=http://katalog.uu.se/empinfo/?id=N94-134 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lars Hartman</a> (b. 1930) contends:
<blockquote>Jesus’ words are the culmination of the story (Mark 5:41b). “Talitha koum” is Aramaic, and the readers may have come to think of how miracle workers and exorcists could use mysterious formulas to subjugate evil—or good—powers...The words mean “Raise, girl!” and by translating them Mark suppresses any associations with incantation formulas and intimates that Jesus just gives an authoritative order. This means that the field of associations is the same as when Jesus commanded the storm to be still (Mark 4:39). Mark’s translation is, however, not literal, but he inserts “I say to you,” and in that way he underlines Jesus’ own power. Nevertheless, the borderline is not sharp between his power and the power of God, since it all has to do with the reign of God (cf. Psalm 104:30, Septuagint, “You send forth your spirit, then they are created”). Since the story of Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:11) the readers know that Jesus is empowered by the Spirit, and this knowledge has been confirmed by Jesus’ defense against the accusation of being on Beelzebul’s side (Mark 3:27-30). (Hartman, <i>Mark for the Nations: A Text- and Reader-Oriented Commentary</I>, 224)</blockquote>
Not all Aramaisms occur in the context of miracles and Jesus performs numerous miracles without the (documented) use of Aramaic. His actual words are stark and simple and further remove any sense of magical incantation.
<p>Max Wilcox (1927-2010) quips:
<blockquote>The view that <i>talitha</I> is a foreign word, part of the magician’s mystique, is ingenious but fails to take account of the Jewish and indeed Aramaic nature of the whole setting of the story. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], <i>Anchor Bible Dictionary</i>, 6:310)</blockquote>
While pagan readers might have connected Jesus’ foreign words to incantations, the text likely sparked entirely different associations for early Christian readers. The Greek word for “get up” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “arise” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV) would likely conjure images of resurrection.
<p><a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1912&menu_id=72 STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">C. Clifton Black</a> (b. 1955) informs:
<blockquote>Early Christians could have heard in Mark’s terms for the child’s rising, <i>-emi</I> (Mark 5:42) the language of resurrection (Mark 5:41) and <i>anist egeir-o</I> (see Mark 6:14, 12:23-26, 16:6,9, 14). (Black, <i>Mark (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)</I>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ubs-translations.org/fileadmin/publications/tbt/practical/BT-61-4-Omanson.pdf STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert G. Bratcher</a> (1920-2010) and <a href=http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/news/794-eugene-nida-dies/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Eugene A. Nida</a> (1914-2011) contextualize:
<blockquote><i>Egeire</I> (cf. Mark 1:31) ‘rise’, ‘get up’. Whether this simply means ‘rise from the bed’, or ‘rise from the dead’ will be determined by the meaning given the statement of Jesus concerning the girl in Mark 5:39. (Bratcher and Nida, <i>A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark</I>, 180)</blockquote>
In this way, the raising of Jairus’ daughter foreshadows Jesus’ own resurrection and that of his followers. James A. Brooks (b. 1933) reads:
<blockquote>Mark interpreted the Aramaic by using a Greek word that elsewhere in the New Testament is used in connection with the resurrection of Jesus and Christians (as is also the word “live” in Mark 5:23). The resurrection of the girl is therefore a preview of the resurrection of believers. (Brooks, <i>Mark (New American Commentary)</I>, 95)</blockquote>
Eugene LaVerdiere (1936-2008) connects:
<blockquote>The great moment had arrived. Jesus took hold of the girl’s hand [Mark 5:41], as he had done for Simon’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:31) and said to her in Aramaic, <i>Talitha koum,”</I> which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise!” (Mark 5:41). The tone of Mark’s Greek translation corresponds to what one would expect of a liturgical formula. The Greek verb, <i>egeiro</I> (to raise), the same that was used in the raising of Simon’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:31) and in the raising of the paralytic (Mark 2:11, 12), is associated with Jesus’ own resurrection in the story of his passion-resurrection (Mark 14:28, 16:6). (LaVerdiere, <i>The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark, Volume 1</I>), 140)</blockquote>
The story has striking parallels to a later incident involving Peter in Acts (Acts 9:36-42): <a href=http://home.comcast.net/~gcaichele/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">George Aichele</a> (b. 1944) bridges:
<blockquote>A remarkably similar saying appears in the book of Acts 9:40, where Peter heals the disciple Tabitha (“which means Dorcas”) with the command, “Tabitha arise,” <i>Tabitha, anasthêthi</I>. The Aramaic phrase, if there were one, would be something life “<i>tabitha cumi</I>,” a formulation which is supported by the Old Latin version of Mark 5:41 and close to the texts of the fifth-century Greek manuscripts D and W. Otherwise different stories bring together the transliteration of the words <i>talitha</i>/<i>tabitha</I> and the Greek verb <i>anistêmi</I>, the apparent death of a girl/woman, and the successful command to rise (“And he gave her his hand and lifted her up,” Acts 9:41, RSV). This correlation between the two passages suggests a correspondence between the stories. The story in Acts strangely echoes Mark’s story. (Aichele, <i>Jesus Framed</I>, 60)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/joel-marcus STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Joel Marcus</a> (b. 1951) further associates:
<blockquote>James 5:15 promises that “the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” There is a remarkable closeness here to the overall story in Mark 5:21-43: one sick person is saved (=cured) by faith, and another is raised up. As Gérard Rochais [1939-2011] suggests (<i>Les Récits De Résurrection Des Morts Dans Le Nouveau Testament</I>, 60), Mark’s juxtaposition of these two tales may hint that, on the way to the final “healing” of humanity at the resurrection, people already see the power of death driven back when Jesus heals them of their illness. (Marcus, <i>Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 363)</blockquote>
That the story has echoes of resurrection is not surprising within Mark’s gospel. <a href=http://academics.holycross.edu/religiousstudies/faculty STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William E. Reiser</a> (b. 1943) notices:
<blockquote>Easter pervades the story. There are numerous instances in the Gospel where someone figuratively dead is raised back to life. One first thinks of the leper who is healed in the opening chapter [Mark 1:40-45], and then of the demented individual in chapter 5 who made dwelling among the tombs [Mark 5:2-20]. The leper had died to his family and friends (“He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp” [Leviticus 13:46]); the crazed man was dead to human contact as such. Both are brought back to life. The daughter of Jairus is another obvious example: “He took her by the hand and said to her, ‘Talitha cum,’ which means, ‘Little girl, get up!’” (Mark 5:41). (Reiser, <i>Jesus in Solidarity with His People: A Theologian Looks at Mark</I>, 78)</blockquote>
Jesus’ enlivening voice summons the girl (Mark 5:41). In doing so, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11) raises the little lamb in the most intimate of ways. As Christ calls the little girl to “get up” we somehow feel that he is calling to all who are enslaved, constained and hopeless.
<p><a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/williamson_jr_the_rev_dr_and_mrs_lamar/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Lamar Williamson, Jr.</a> (b. 1926) preaches:
<blockquote>“Fear not [Mark 5:36],” so characteristic of appearances of God in the Old Testament (e.g. the theophanies in Genesis 15:1, 21:17, 26:24, 46:3), represents here as well the divine intervention to save and to give life. Not even after death is it too late to hope...Readers today are to understand the raising of Jairus’ daughter in light of Jesus’ own resurrection. Beside an open casket or at the moment of our own death we are invited to respond to the words <i>Talitha, cumi</I> not with a historical question about a past event but with a thrill of anticipation. (Williamson, <i>Mark (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 111)</blockquote>
<a href=https://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/william-willimon STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">William H. Willimon</a> (b. 1946) personalizes:
<blockquote>I think he [Jesus] may be calling to you. “Get up!” His voice is strong, commanding, vital. “Get up!” You have perhaps heard his comforting, soft voice before, stilling the waves of the storm, bringing peace to troubled waters [Mark 4:39]. Now hear his other voice, that strong, shattering, enlivening voice. Evoking “fear and trembling” (Mark 5:33) in all who heard it that day, it may do the same for us. Life is frightening, when it intrudes into the realm of death. Hear his voice now. I think it is a shout. There is so much death. We are asleep with death so it takes a loud voice to wake us...In this story, we don’t have to wait to Easter for life to intrude and death to be defeated. Get up! he says. In the name of Jesus Christ, the victor over pain and death, enslavement and despair, Get up! (Willimon, “Get Up”, unpublished sermon preached June 29, 1997, at the <a href=http://chapel.duke.edu/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Duke University Chapel</a>)</blockquote>
<p><font color="#66CD00">Is Mark’s use of Aramaic intended to draw comparisons to magical incantations (Mark 5:41)? What other stories foreshadow Jesus’ resurrection? What reminds you of your future resurrection? When have you been instructed to “get up?” What is Jesus calling you to get up and do?</font>
<blockquote>“It is that life-giving power that is at the heart of this shadowy story about Jairus and the daughter he loved [Mark 5:21-43], and that I believe is at the heart of all our stories— the power of new life, new hope, new being, that whether we know it or not, I think, keeps us coming to places like this year after year in search of it. It is the power to get up even when getting up isn’t all that easy for us anymore and to keep getting up and going on and on toward whatever it is, whoever he is, that all our lives long reaches out to take us by the hand.” - <a href=http://www.frederickbuechner.com/ STYLE="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Frederick Buechner</a> (b. 1926), “Jairus’s Daughter”, <i>Secrets in the Dark</I>, p. 278</blockquote>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-90651819729316710732014-07-14T15:00:00.000-07:002014-07-14T15:00:01.165-07:00Letting Go of Deborah (Genesis 35:8)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HAhqWD-tqmw/U8MbdzdiVjI/AAAAAAAAI5I/m1Z88ry1VIo/s1600/LettingGo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149.333" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HAhqWD-tqmw/U8MbdzdiVjI/AAAAAAAAI5I/m1Z88ry1VIo/s320/LettingGo.jpg" /></a></div><b>What was the name of Rebekah’s nurse? Deborah</b>
<p>While residing in Shechem (Genesis 33:18-20), God commands Jacob to return to Bethel and build an altar (Genesis 35:1). The patriarch complies, instructing his entire entourage to purge their idols, purify themselves and change their clothes (Genesis 35:1-3). After burying the idols near Shechem (Genesis 35:4), the caravan journeys to Bethel where Jacob builds the prescribed altar (Genesis 35:5-7).
<p>The text notes that while there, his mother Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah, dies (Genesis 35:8).
<blockquote>Now Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried below Bethel under the oak; it was named Allon-bacuth. (Genesis 35:8 NASB)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.elizabethgeorge.com/>Elizabeth George</a> (b. 1944) imagines:
<blockquote>Age brought an end to Deborah’s active role of caregiver, and then Jacob’s family cared for her. She loved them, and they loved her...Deborah was buried under “the oak of weeping” [Genesis 35:8] and was lamented with sadness and tears usually reserved for family. (George, <i>Walking with the Women of the Bible: A Devotional Journey Through God’s Word</I>, 67)</blockquote>
Deborah’s death notice is puzzling. Rebekah has not appeared in the book’s last seven chapters (Genesis 27:46) and, though her unnamed nurse has been referenced (Genesis 24:59), Deborah’s name appears in the text only here (Genesis 35:8). She is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.
<p>Martin Sicker (b. 1931) acknowledges:
<blockquote>It is not at all clear why this statement is included in the text or what its significance is, and for over two millennia commentators have struggled to explain it. Perhaps what is most troubling is its mention by name of Rebekah’s nurse, and the notation regarding her death and burial, at the same time that the text is completely silent with regard to the death and burial of Rebekah. The absence of relevant information in the text has inspired a good amount of speculation and supposition to fill the gap. (Sicker, <i>The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob</I>, 167)</blockquote>
The announcement leaves a lot of questions. <a href=http://www.aei.org/scholar/leon-r-kass/>Leon R. Kass</a> (b. 1939) asks:
<blockquote>The report of Deborah’s death takes the reader by surprise: Why Deborah? And why now? Deborah, has played no visible part in our story; never before mentioned by name, we know of her only from a remark made long ago, when Abraham’s servant came looking for a wife for Isaac: “And they sent away Rebekah their sister, <i>and her nurse</I>, and Abraham’s servant and his men” (Genesis 24:59, emphasis added). How did she come now to be in Jacob’s party? And why are we told of her death, especially since the death of Rebekah herself will not be reported? We have no confident answers to these perplexing questions. (Kass, <i>The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis</i>, 502)</blockquote>
Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) surmises:
<blockquote>The brief notice about the death of Deborah [Genesis 35:8], who is not mentioned before or after, gives one the impression that the narrator and his readers once knew more about her. One may not ask what Rebekah’s old nurse, who belonged in Isaac’s house, was doing on Jacob’s wandering. A tradition about Deborah was early connected with a place not far from Bethel. According to Judges 4:5, it may have been one about the prophetess Deborah, but then a different tradition knew of a nurse of Rebekah. Since Jacob has now arrived in the vicinity of Bethel, this brief traditional element has been attached to the narrative. (Von Rad, <i>Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 338)</blockquote>
The verse is classified as a death report (Genesis 35:8). <a href=http://www.journeyingwithjules.com/>Jules Francis Gomes</a> (b. 1966) inspects:
<blockquote>Genesis 35:8 is traditionally attributed to E. The form is that of a “Death Report” followed by the formula reporting the naming of the place in Genesis 35:8b. Structurally, it serves as an introduction to subsequent death reports (Genesis 35:16-19, 28-29). <a href=http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/evangelisch-theologische-fakultaet/lehrstuehle-und-institute/altes-testament/altes-testament-i/mitarbeiter/blum-erhard-prof-dr.html>Erhard Blum</a> [b. 1950] demonstrates how the death, burial and place naming for Deborah (Genesis 35:8) and Rachel (Genesis 35:19-20) closely resemble each other. The death reports are interrupted by P (Genesis 35:9-15) with a parallel report on the naming of Bethel. (Gomes, <i>The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity</I>, 88)</blockquote>
Narrative asides such as this are common in Genesis. Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) comments:
<blockquote>The very brief “comments” that occur occasionally in Genesis stand in starkest contrast to the expansive legends—for example, when it is stated, very briefly, that Jacob encountered the divine host in Mahaniam (Genesis 32:2-3), and he bought a field in Shechem (Genesis 38:18-20), that Deborah died and was buried near Bethel (Genesis 35:8, 14), that Rachel died near Ephratha when Benjamin was born...(Genesis 35:16ff.), or that Sarah was buried in the cave of Machpelah [Genesis 23:19]...It is certainly no accident that many of these “comments” mention the place where the event occurred, indeed, that it is often the main point of the whole tradition. Consequently, we must see such information as local traditions adapted directly from oral tradition. Such brief local traditions can still be heard in the <a href=https://www.deutschland.de/en>German</a> countryside and read in legend books (cf. Jacob Grimm [1785-1863] and Wilhelm Grimm [1786-1859], <i>Deutsche Sagen</I> nos. 2, 6, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, etc. and, e.g., also Karl Bader [1868-1956], <i>Hessische Sagen</I> 1, nos. 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, etc.). Later narrators sometimes constructed whole narratives from such “comments” (cf. Genesis 4:4). (Gunkel [translated by <a href=http://www.btsr.edu/about/staff-faculty/mark-edward-biddle/meet-dr-mark-biddle/>Mark E. Biddle</a> (b. 1957)], <i>Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies)</I>, xlviii)</blockquote>
Some have conjectured that the laconic notice may have been displaced. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) notices:
<blockquote>There follows in Genesis 35:8 an itinerary note, apparently independent of both...Genesis 35:1-7 and Genesis 35:9-12...It would be quite appropriate, however, before Genesis 35:16; in both form and content, Genesis 35:8 and Genesis 35:16-20 belong together. (Westermann, <i>Genesis (Academic Paperback)</I>, 244)</blockquote>
Though the aside seems like a non sequitur, George W. Coats (1936-2006) situates:
<blockquote>This little unit [Genesis 35:8] connects with the context on the basis of a catchword organization. The context concerns Bethel. The burial site at the center of this tradition is Bethel. Yet, beyond catchword organization, the unit has no contact with its context. In the redaction of the patriarchal narratives as a whole, it may be taken as an introduction to the section of narratives dealing with death and burial of patriarchal figures and their associates. The following unit (P) interrupts that organization with a parallel to the Bethel tradition in Genesis 28:10-22 and Genesis 35:1-7. But the theme of death and burial or succession returns in Genesis 35:16 (J). It should be noted, however, that this unit has more contact with an Isaac narrative than with Jacob. Deborah has played no role in the narrative frame. There is no connection between her death and the pilgrimage from Shechem to Bethel described in Genesis 35:1-7. Rather, one has the impression that with this verse J shifts the organization of the Jacob tradition from the narrative inclusion to the narratives about the last days and the death of the patriarch and his family. (→ Genesis 35:16-20). (Coats, <i>Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature)</I>, 238)</blockquote>
Deborah’s passing inaugurates a theme in this chapter of Genesis (Genesis 35:8, 19, 29). <a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-bill-t-arnold/>Bill T. Arnold</a> (b. 1955) observes:
<blockquote>Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah, who left Mesopotamia with her mistress to return with Abraham’s servant (Genesis 24:59), is mentioned here again here in a passing death and burial notice (Genesis 35:8). She plays no role in the narrative and is named only here. But the record of her death is the first of three in this chapter [Genesis 35:8, 19, 29], which together serve to bring closure to the Jacob narrative generally. (Arnold, <i>Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary)</I>, 302)</blockquote>
<a href=http://web.utk.edu/~religion/faculty/humphreys.php>W. Lee Humphreys</a> (b. 1939) compares:
<blockquote>The narrator tells us that on the journey from Bethel, death once more strikes Jacob’s family. The impact of the death of Deborah seems limited in terms of the narrative space given her [Genesis 35:8]. The second death—of Rachel in childbirth—carried a much greater weight [Genesis 35:16-21]. (Humphreys, <i>The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal</I>, 200)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/akuruvilla/>Abraham Kuruvilla</a> considers:
<blockquote>Rachel’s burial in Bethelem is puzzling [Genesis 35:19]: it was only twenty-odd miles to the family burial site at Machpelah, where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah were buried (Genesis 49:31). Indeed, if Jacob himself could have his body, and Joseph his bones, moved 200 miles from Egypt to the same burial site (Genesis 50:1-14; Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32), one wonders why Rachel’s remains could not have been transported a tenth of that distance to Machpelah. Besides, her burial is described in the exact terms as Deborah’s is, in Genesis 35:8; “And Deborah died...and she was buried,” “And Rachel died, and she was buried” (Genesis 35:19). “But while the sort of <i>al fresco</I> burial these verses depict is appropriate for a character like Deborah, a servant who merely sojourns with Abraham’s family and not a member of the Abrahamic patriline, it seems strikingly out of place for Rachel, whom we would expect to receive instead the interment in Machpelah due an honored wife, as is accorded to Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah.” (Kuruvilla, <i>Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers</I>, 439)</blockquote>
Despite multiple deaths, the overarching tone of the chapter is upbeat (Genesis 35:1-29). Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) characterize:
<blockquote><i>Deborah</I>...died and was buried under the Oak of Weeping [Genesis 35:8]. Surely, there was mourning but the event also carried the undertone that they were in the land of milk and honey [Exodus 3:8]. (Kessler and Deurloo, <i>A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings</I>, 179)</blockquote>
Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) expounds:
<blockquote>The journey to Bethel is shadowed by multiple reminders of death [Genesis 35:1-8]. The departure has to be protected lest the surrounding cities attack [Genesis 35:5]. There is another reference to fleeing from Esau [Genesis 35:1]. And then, most explicitly, there is sudden death, sudden in the sense that it intrudes, unannounced, in the narrative. It is the death of Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah [Genesis 35:8]. Its intrusiveness in the narrative does not mean that it does not belong there. Rather it illustrates vividly one of the narrative’s key concerns—the shadow of death, and the unpredictability of the way death strikes. Deborah apparently is the kind of person who is scarcely noticed till she dies...Yet, despite the emphasis on death, the journey as a whole is positive. (Brodie, <i>Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary</I>, 342)</blockquote>
Deborah is known only by her death (Genesis 35:8). <a href=http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1053.asp>Tammi J. Schneider</a> (b. 1962) introduces:
<blockquote>Deborah is the subject of one verb: she “dies” (Genesis 35:8). Deborah is described only by her occupation, but she is never depicted as doing her job. Her importance must lie in something other than her abilities as a nurse. (Schneider, <i>Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis</I>, 207)</blockquote>
Though her name is referenced only at her death (Genesis 35:8), most commentators have determined that Deborah is the anonymous nurse who accompanies Rebekah from Paddan-Aram (Genesis 24:59).
<p><a href=https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarahshectman>Sarah Shectman</a> (b. 1973) connects:
<blockquote>Very little attention has been paid to this Deborah, Rebekah’s wetnurse, who is mentioned by name only once, in Genesis 35:8, although an anonymous wetnurse of Rebekah is mentioned in Genesis 24:59 as well. The latter verse states that Rebekah takes her nurse with her when she leaves with Abraham’s servant to go to Canaan and marry Isaac [Genesis 24:59]. Interpreters tend to assume that these two wetnurses are the same person, and it is difficult to argue with this assumption. The text is not concerned with the logistics of how the wetnurse got from one place to another and suggests a tradition that this wetnurse stayed with Rebekah’s family for multiple generations. (Shectman, <i>Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis</i>, 103)</blockquote><a href=http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1053.asp>Tammi J. Schneider</a> (b. 1962) concurs:
<blockquote>Deborah is named and described in only one passage, Genesis 35:8. But there is good reason to consider another passage as obliquely referring to her. The first potential reference to Deborah appears when Rebekah is leaving her family to marry Isaac (Genesis 24:59). The text notes that they send off their sister and her nurse, along with Abraham’s servants and his men. The term used for “nurse” is <i>meneqet</I>. The noun used to describe this person comes from the verb <i>yanaq</I>, meaning “to suck,” leading to the translation “wet nurse”...Nowhere is Deborah depicted nursing a child, and it is highly unlikely that Deborah still nurses Rebekah, nor does Rebekah have children. It is not clear why she accompanies Rebekah. The reason to connect this women to the Deborah who dies in Genesis 35:8 is that she is also labeled Rebekah’s “nurse.” The title is used infrequently in the biblical text and its use for both of these women connected with Rebekah strongly supports their identification. (Schneider, <i>Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis</I>, 206-07)</blockquote>
Deborah’s name literally means “bee”. Her name within the family might have been Aunt Bee! While running a hive that includes twin boys, she is likely “busy as a bee”.
<p>This type of name is common among Hebrew women. David W. Cotter provides:
<blockquote>A rule of thumb—women’s names often allude to some aspect of the natural world, e.g., Tamar = “palm tree,” Deborah = “honey bee,” Susanna = “lily.” Men’s names, by contrast, often contain a theophoric element, i.e., some reference to God: Michael = “who is like God?” Isaiah = “YHWH saves,” etc. (Cotter, <i>Genesis (Berit Olam; Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</I>, xxx)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/jeffbenner/>Jeff A. Benner</a> traces the root:
<blockquote>The root word is ‘davar’ and is most frequently translated as a thing or a word. The original picture painted by this word to the Hebrews is the arrangement of things to create order. Speech is an ordered arrangement of words. In the ancient Hebrew mind words are ‘things’ and are just as ‘real’ as food or other ‘things’. When a word is spoken to another it is ‘placed in the ears’ no different than when food is given to another it is ‘placed in the mouth’. The Hebrew name Devorah (Deborah) means ‘bee’ and is the feminine form of the word davar. Bees are a community of insects which live in a perfectly ordered arrangement. The word ‘midvar’ meaning wilderness is actually a place that exists as a perfectly arranged order as its ecosystem is in harmony and balance. (Benner, <a href=http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_wilderness.html>Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings:
Wilderness ~ Midvar</a>)</blockquote>
Deborah is “the help” (Genesis 35:8). She is a described as a “nurse” (ASV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “one who had nursed” (HCSB) or “personal servant” (CEV).
<p>Deborah would likely have been seen as a nanny. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005), investigates:
<blockquote>Hebrew <i>meneket</I> is really a wet nurse, such as employed for the baby Moses in Exodus 2:7. Rebekah could hardly have been in need of such services. In Mesopotamia the wet nurse, Akkadian <i>mušēniqtum</I>, “the one who suckles,” frequently had the additional duties of <i>tarbītum</I>, bringing up the child and acting as its guardian. In Genesis 35:8 Rebekah’s nurse is identified as Deborah, and her death and burial are recorded. She was obviously an esteemed member of the family. Having attended and reared Rebekah from birth, she must have remained as a member of the household and now accompanies her as a chaperon. Interestingly, Targum Jonathan renders <i>meneket</I> by <i>padgogthah</I> from Greek <i>paidagŏgos</I>, “tutor,” a meaning that echoes the Akkadian <i>tarbītum</I>. (Sarna, <i>Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary)</I>, 169)</blockquote>
Martin Sicker (b. 1931) suspects:
<blockquote>With regard to Deborah’s identification as <i>Rebekah’s nurse</I>, the Hebrew term <i>meineket</I> would be better translated as “wet-nurse.” It has been suggested that the term does not refer to the woman who served as wet-nurse to Rebekah, but rather that she was the wet-nurse employed by Rebekah to care for their infant sons Esau and Jacob, which might explain in part why her death was a matter of particular concern to Jacob. (Sicker, <i>The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob</I>, 167)</blockquote>
The descriptor “nurse” is rare in the Old Testament. <a href=http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1053.asp>Tammi J. Schneider</a> (b. 1962) inventories:
<blockquote>The other two “nurses” serve Moses (Exodus 2:7) and Joash (II Kings 11:2; II Chronicles 22:11). There is a reference in Isaiah 49:23 but it is to theoretical future “nurses,” not specific individuals. (Schneider, <i>Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis</I>, 207)</blockquote>
That Rebekah has a nurse has been interpreted as a sign of her family’s wealth (Genesis 24:59, 35:8). <a href=http://religiousstudies.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1699&subpage=profile>Carol Meyers</a> (b. 1942) infers:
<blockquote>Because the mention of wet nurses is so rare in the Hebrew Bible (the only other specific instances are for Moses, where his biological mother is “hired” to be his nurse [Exodus 2:7], and for Joash, a Judean king whose mother was apparently murdered [II Kings 11:2; II Chronicles 22:11]), it may be assumed that most Israelite women nursed their own children. The exceptions may have been elite or royal women. That Rebekah is said to have had a nurse may be a literary embellishment pointing to her prominence among matriarchs. (Meyers, Toni Craven [b. 1944], <a href=https://vivo.brown.edu/display/rkraemer>Ross Shepard Kraemer</a> [b. 1948], “Deborah 1”, <i>Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament</I>, 66)</blockquote>
Given her vocation, Deborah is likely an important witness. Like Eugene Allen (1919-2010), the <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/>White House</a> butler who served eight presidents, Deborah has a unique view to multiple generations of history. Her presence at one event may be especially significant.
<p><a href=http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1053.asp>Tammi J. Schneider</a> (b. 1962) speculates:
<blockquote>Deborah is labeled not a midwife but a west nurse [Genesis 35:8]. The text does not suggest who is with Rebekah when she bears her twin boys [Genesis 25:24-26]. Could it be that Deborah is there when Rebekah bears Esau and Jacob? If so, Deborah is the only person who witnesses which child emerges first. Throughout the text the situation of the primogenitor is an issue and here it is particularly important: the Deity conveys to Rebekah that the older shall serve the younger [Genesis 25:23]...This is a major concern for Rebekah, ensuring that the Deity’s plan comes true. Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, would be the only person who knows which son of Rebekah should receive the promise. (Schneider, <i>Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis</I>, 208)</blockquote>
Deborah has clearly endeared herself to the family, her value far exceeding her vocational position. <a href=http://www.wpi.edu/academics/facultydir/mke.html>Michelle Ephraim</a> (b. 1969) chronicles:
<blockquote>The medieval philosopher Nachmanides [1194-1270] understands the nurse Deborah as a surrogate maternal figure who gets sent along in lieu of Rebecca to accompany Jacob as he leaves home. Jacob’s weeping on the occasion of her death [Genesis 35:8], he reasons, should be taken as his mourning of Rebecca, whose death ceremony, for reasons of Jacob’s departure [Genesis 28:5], Esau’s fury [Genesis 27:41], and Isaac’s blindness [Genesis 27:1], could not be properly performed: “[F]or the weeping and anguish could not have been such for the passing of the old nurse that the place would have been named on account of it. Instead, Jacob wept and mourned for his righteous mother who had loved him and sent him to Paddan-Aram and who was not privileged to see him when he returned.” The Midrash explains Jacob’s weeping, similarly, as grief for both Deborah and Rebecca. John Calvin [1509-1564] understands Deborah as “a holy matron...whom the family of Jacob venerated as a mother” whose ceremonial burial is evidence of her status. Andrew Willet [1562-1621] explains that Deborah most likely played the role of Rebecca’s “bringer up and instructor.” (Ephraim, <i>Reading the Jewish Woman on the Elizabethan Stage</I>, 63)</blockquote>
Jacob’s respectful burial of this servant is a sign of love. A contemporary literary comparison might be that of <a href=https://www.pottermore.com>Harry Potter</a>’s unnecessary burial of the house-elf, Dobby (<a href=http://www.jkrowling.com/>J.K. Rowling</a> (b. 1965), <i>Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows</I>, 477-81).
<p>Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) applauds:
<blockquote>Jacob’s tender treatment of this elderly servant is an example for all of us to follow. (Wiersbe, <i>Be Authentic: Exhibiting Real Faith in the Real World (Genesis 25-50)</I>, 83)</blockquote>
Deborah’s body is laid to rest beside an oak tree and the site is christened Allon-bacuth (Genesis 35:8). <a href=http://www.ctu.edu/academics/dianne-bergant-csa>Dianne Bergant</a> (b. 1936) explains:
<blockquote>Planting a tree over a burial site, as Jacob did over Deborah’s grave [Genesis 35:8], was a common practice. It might have developed from an animalistic belief that the souls of the dead could then live in trees. The name of the tree planted here is very fitting for the occasion: בכות אלון (<i>Allon-bacuth</I>; the oak of the weeping). (Bergant, <i>Genesis: In the Beginning</I>, 150)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/kennethamathews>Kenneth A. Mathews</a> (b. 1950) supports:
<blockquote>The association of Deborah’s internment with the “oak” (<i>’allôn</I>) at Bethel also encouraged the inclusion of this burial in the passage (see “oak [<i>’ēlâ</I>],” at Shechem, Genesis 35:4). Her burial under a tree was not exceptional (cf. “tree” [<i>’ēlâ</I>], I Chronicles 10:12; also I Samuel 31:13), although in the patriarchal period a hewn cave for multiple burials was typical. Burial sites continued to be honored by later generations, providing future descendants a psychology of divinity with the land (Genesis 47:29-30, 49:29-32, 50:25; Exodus 13:19). (Mathews, <i>Genesis 11:27-50:26 (New American Commentary)</I>, 620-21)</blockquote>
Some have connected this tree with the palm tree from which the judge Deborah operates (Judges 4:5). <a href=http://www.journeyingwithjules.com/>Jules Francis Gomes</a> (b. 1966) informs:
<blockquote>The connection between the palm of Deborah in Judges and Rebekah’s nurse has been noted by many scholars, “asserting that the latter day Deborah had turned a venerable place of lamentation into a little oracular oasis.” (Gomes, <i>The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity</I>, 121)</blockquote>
<a href=http://kspronk.wordpress.com/in-english/>Klaas Spronk</a> (b. 1957) explicates:
<blockquote>According to Barnabas Lindars [1923-1991], “the later editor, knowing the place, has decided that it was the right place for Deborah simply because the name was the same. This was not necessarily due to simple-minded confusion, but was the result of an hermeneutical principle, whereby one passage of scripture is elucidated by reference to another. In this case it furnished the location of Deborah, which was not given in the text.’...If Lindars is right in assuming that a later editor used Genesis 35:8 to fill the gap of information left in Judges 4, then why did he not cite it properly? In Genesis 35:8 we hear of Rebecca’s nurse Deborah being buried ‘under the oak below Bethel’ and that this oak received on this occasion the name ‘oak of weeping’ (בכות אלון). Why does the assumed editor not speak in Judges 4:5 of an oak, but instead a palm tree or, to be more precise, of חמר, using an uncommon vocalization? A commonly accepted bridge between these names was constructed by Wolfgang Richter [b. 1926]. He relates both trees to ‘the oak of Tabor’ (חבור אלון) mentioned in I Samuel 10:3, which is also located in the vicinity of Bethel. This would be according to an old suggestion a corruption of דבורה אלון, ‘the oak of Deborah.’ This does not explain, however, the use of the word חמר in stead of the expected אלו. According to Lindars the unusual vocalization might indicate a ‘different tree from the various kinds of palm...it might denote any tree.’ Why did the editor not use then, one could ask, the normal word in Hebrew for tree? More to the point seems to be the explanation of this word by Angelo Penna [1917-1981] as polemically vocalized with the vowels of בשת, ‘shame’, indicating that we are dealing here with a pagan cult object. Lindars reports this suggestion, but does not accept it. In my opinion, however, this could very well be a first clue to a better understanding of this verse. (Johannes C. de Moor [b. 1935], “Deborah, a Prophetess: The Meaning and Background of Judges 4:4-5”, <i>The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character, and Anonymous Artist</I>, 234)</blockquote>
Some interpreters have seen the explanation of this location’s name as the primary reason behind the death report (Genesis 35:8). <a href=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Alter/Alter.html>Robert Alter</a> (b. 1935) remarks:
<blockquote><i>Allon-bakuth</I>. The name means “oak of weeping.” Beyond the narrative etiology of a place-name, there is not enough evidence to explain what this lonely obituary notice is doing here. (Alter, <i>Genesis: Translation and Commentary</I>, 197)</blockquote>
Deborah’s grave site gives Jacob one more stake in the Promised Land, an important prerequisite to the fulfillment of the promises given to his grandfather, Abraham (Genesis 12:2).
<p><a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton>John H. Walton</a> (b. 1952) enlightens:
<blockquote>When the family of Jacob arrives at Bethel, Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah...is buried under a tree (Genesis 35:8). There is no suggestion that this land for burial has to be purchased, but its use for a tomb establishes yet another claim and foothold in the land. This continues to be an important submotif in the author’s development of covenant issues. (Walton, <i>Genesis (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 631)</blockquote>
Deborah’s presence here is odd (Genesis 35:8). She is out of place both in the narrative and geographically. <a href=http://www.newbold.ac.uk/academic-staff/department-theological-studies/dr-laurence-turner.html>Laurence A. Turner</a> concedes:
<blockquote>The most puzzling element in this paragraph is the death notice of Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Genesis 35:8)...Claus Westermann [1909-2000] considers it to be ‘beyond comprehension what Rebekah’s nurse is doing in Jacob’s caravan’ (Westermann 1985:552). Surely she could not have accompanied Jacob to and from Haran. (Turner, <i>Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary)</I>, 156)</blockquote>
Joyce G. Baldwin (1921-1995) notices:
<blockquote>There is nothing to suggest that she had been in Jacob’s caravan, and by this time she would have been very old, having left Haran some 140 years earlier (compare Genesis 25:20 with Genesis 35:28). Her grave would, however, have been of considerable interest to this family, which had come from the same place in Haran as Jacob’s wives. (Baldwin, <i>The Message of Genesis 12–50 (Bible Speaks Today)</I>, 149)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.drmigueldelatorre.com/>Miguel A. De La Torre</a> (b. 1958) inquires:
<blockquote>The appearance of Deborah as a member of the caravan is odd [Genesis 35:8]. She is the only servant in Genesis whose death is recorded, even though we know nothing about her, except that she left Paddan-arm with Rebekah [Genesis 24:59]. It is strange that the text tells us about Deborah’s death, and yet is silent about the death of her mistress, the matriarch Rebekah. Moreover, how did Deborah find herself in Jacob’s caravan? Did Deborah go with Jacob to Laban’s house over two decades earlier? If so, why is she not mentioned as accompanying him on the journey? If not, when did she join the caravan? (De La Torre, <i>Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible</I>, 294)</blockquote>
John C.L. Gibson (1930-2008) wonders:
<blockquote>Had this old, old woman, who had perhaps dandled him on her knee as a baby, come north to Jacob from Hebron when he had returned to Canaan to tell him of Rebekah’s own earlier death, the mother who, it will be remembered, had expected him back from Mesopotamia in a “few days” (Genesis 27:44 KJV), but had not lived to see it? If so, the note prepares us for a quick descent from triumph to pathos; for hardly has Jacob left Bethel than his beloved Rachel dies giving birth to Benjamin [Genesis 35:19].(Gibson, <i>Genesis, Volume 2 (Daily Study Bible)</I>, 217-18)</blockquote>
Many have speculated that Deborah’s presence is because she is serving as a messenger. Rashi (1040-1105) records a tradition that Rebekah has sent Deborah to alert Jacob that it is finally safe to return (Genesis 27:45).
<p>Martin Sicker (b. 1931) supposes:
<blockquote>It is suggested that, notwithstanding her obviously advanced age, Deborah was sent by Rebekah to find Jacob and encourage him to return home, fulfilling Rebekah’s promise to him when she sent him away to escape his brother’s anger until it was assuaged, <i>then I will send and fetch thee from thence</I> (Genesis 27:45). According to this reconstruction of events, Deborah encountered Jacob after he left Shechem and reported to him that his mother Rebekah had died, and then succumbed herself. (Sicker, <i>The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob</I>, 167-68)</blockquote>
More commonly, Deborah is seen as the bearer of the bad news that Rebekah has died.
<a href=http://rbseminary.org/dean-faculty>Robert R. Gonzales, Jr.</a> (b. 1963) conjectures:
<blockquote>After Rebekah’s death and on learning that Jacob was on his way, Deborah apparently went to meet Jacob to give him the news. Ironically, she dies sometime shortly afterwards. (Gonzalez, <i>Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in Genesis with Special Focus on the Patriarchal Narratives</I>, 236)</blockquote>
The presumption is that if Deborah is not with Rebekah, Rebekah is dead. Rebekah is Deborah’s home. This makes the passage as indirect allusion to Rebekah. In this way, Deborah is doing what she always does: standing in as a surrogate for Rebekah.
<p>Many have seen Deborah’s death notice as an indictment against Rebekah. When last seen, the matriarch assures her reluctant son, Jacob, that if he deceives his brother Esau, as she proposes, that she will incur any resulting curse upon herself (Genesis 27:13). Rebekah assumes the consequences for Jacob’s actions.
<p><a href=http://www.knoxseminary.edu/knox-faculty/dr-bruce-k-waltke/>Bruce K. Waltke</a> (b. 1930) understands:
<blockquote>Rebekah stakes her life on her convictions [Genesis 27:13]. Knowing the oracle she has been given that the older will serve the younger [Genesis 25:23], she can dismiss Jacob’s fears. Although her faith pays off and no curse falls on her, she pays a price for her deception. Ominously she disappears...after this scene. The narrator memorializes Deborah, her nurse not Rebekah (Genesis 35:8) and makes no notice of her death (cf. Genesis 23:1-2). At the end of Genesis however, he notes that she was given an honorable burial with the other patriarchs and matriarchs in the cave of Machpelah (see Genesis 49:31). (Waltke with <a href=https://www.facebook.com/cathi.fredricks>Cathi J. Fredricks</a> [b. 1970], <i>Genesis: A Commentary</I>, 378-379)</blockquote>
Deborah’s presence is a reminder of Rebekah’s conspicuous absence. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>The last we heard of her [Rebekah] was Genesis 27:46, well over twenty years before this scene. Without exception Genesis tells us about each patriarch’s death and burial (Abraham, Genesis 25:7-11; Isaac, Genesis 35:29; Jacob, Genesis 49:33). Genesis also tells us about the death and burial of each patriarch’s favorite wife (Sarah, Genesis 23:1-20; Rachel, Genesis 35:19). The exception is Rebekah, apart from the summarizing statement in Genesis 49:31. Presumably she died and was buried before Jacob returned from Aram-naharaim, for there is no reference to Jacob being reunited with Rebekah. Rebekah is gone, though survived by her nurse, but only Jacob arrives. He not only does not get to see his mother, but is forced to become undertaker for his late mother’s nurse [Genesis 35:8]. Thus, one of Jacob’s first experiences after coming back home is confronting death. But including the name Rebekah, the author helps his reader recall her character, she who instigated the deception of Isaac [Genesis 27:5-10]. Her punishment (implied at least) is that she will never get to see her son again. (Hamilton, <i>The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 378)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.newbold.ac.uk/academic-staff/department-theological-studies/dr-laurence-turner.html>Laurence A. Turner</a> bolsters:
<blockquote>The effect of her [Deborah’s] death notice in this context is important. The narrator has provided the death notices for Sarah (Genesis 23:1-2), and for Rachel in the next paragraph (Genesis 35:19), but for Rebekah, the death of <i>her nurse</I> is provided [Genesis 35:8]. Perhaps depriving Rebekah of a death notice, but providing one for her nurse, passes silent comment on her role in the story. Others who died were remembered; but Rebekah has died and been forgotten. (Her burial place is mentioned in passing only in Genesis 49:31). She died without ever seeing her son again (cf. Genesis 27:44-45), and appears to have said more than she realizes when she told Jacob, ‘Let your curse be on me, my son’ (Genesis 27:13; see Joyce G. Baldwin [1921-1995] 1986:149). (Turner, <i>Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary)</I>, 156)</blockquote>
Deborah is a character who is introduced at her funeral (Genesis 35:8). Her life is not documented, only her death. She is known by her obituary.
<p>Her nature can be inferred from the two passages that reference her (Genesis 24:59, 35:8): Having spent so many years in service to Rebekah, she is loyal and faithful. Deborah must have been courageous to both leave her homeland with Rebekah (Genesis 24:59) and then, at some later point, leave another familiar place at an advanced age to reunite with Jacob in Bethel (Genesis 35:8).
<p>Furthermore, the documentation of her death is evidence that Deborah is an important member of Jacob’s household (Genesis 35:8). The patriarch feels very attached to the woman. This sentiment is likely amplified by Deborah representing the last vestiges of his beloved mother, Rebekah.
<p>At her death, Deborah, a character usually behind-the-scenes, takes a rare turn in the spotlight. She is an unsung hero. In a heart warming moment, the Bible documents the care Jacob takes in regards to this caretaker (Genesis 35:8). The loss of someone the world would have viewed as insignificant is felt greatly by Jacob. And his God.
<p>Why is Deborah’s death notice recorded in Scripture (Genesis 35:8)? When have you felt out of place? Who do you overlook; are you familiar with any unsung heroes? Has anyone served as a surrogate parent to you or your children? How do you feel about these people? When has a person’s death been more documented than their life? When have you felt that you met someone after they passed? How would you want your obituary to read?
<p>This period represents a time of transition in Jacob’s life. Deborah is a connection to his past. <a href=http://drjohnphillips.com/>John Phillips</a> (1927-2010) envisions:
<blockquote>It was a great comfort to Jacob to have her back and, no doubt, a great comfort to his wives as well, for she was a link with Padan-aram. How eagerly Deborah must have asked after Laban and old friends of years gone by. Then, too, she, was a link with Rebekah, a link with him, a link with Jacob’s past, with boyhood days, with life’s early memories. But God was gently severing all those ties and separating Jacob to Himself, so Deborah died and was tenderly buried under a notable terebinth tree, a landmark in those parts now to be called “The oak of weeping” [Genesis 35:8]. It was snapping one more tie that bound Jacob to earthly things. (Phillips, <i>Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary</I>, 275)</blockquote>
Burying Deborah marks the end on an era (Genesis 35:8). <a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/kennethamathews>Kenneth A. Mathews</a> (b. 1950) denotes:
<blockquote>Her [Deborah’s] presence recalls Abraham and Isaac, whose connection with Paddan Aram arose from the servant’ attainment of Rebekah (Genesis 24:59). Deborah then represented the past, and her presence in Jacob’s circle meant that the past is revived in the return of Jacob. Similarly, the death of Rachel in conjunction with Benjamin’s birth also recalls the past in Paddan-Aram (Genesis 35:16-20), which is now only a painful memory for Jacob. The burials of Deborah and Rachel meant the end of the Aramean era. (Mathews, <i>Genesis 11:27-50:26 (New American Commentary)</I>, 614)</blockquote>
R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) agrees:
<blockquote>Now, with the patriarch in Bethel, God began to effect a transition to a new generation with the death of aged Deborah. “And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried under an oak below Bethel. So he called its name Allon-bacuth [“oak of weeping”] (Genesis 35:8). Deborah’s 180 years bridged the lives of the first two patriarchs, “and her death reminded the people of the era that ended with the return of Jacob to Bethel” (<a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/allenpross>Allen P. Ross</a> [b. 1943]). Change was in the air. (Hughes, <i>Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word)</I>, 421)</blockquote>
In laying Deborah to rest, Jacob is burying his past. This is connected to the burial of his family’s idols four verses earlier (Genesis 35:4). Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) bridges:
<blockquote>Deborah being <i>buried</I> [<i>wattiqqābēr</I>] <i>under the oak tree</I> [<i>’allon</I>] parallels Jacob’s burying (<i>wayyitmōn</I>) the false gods under a terebinth (<i>’ēlâ</I>), earlier in the chapter [Genesis 35:4]. For the gods’ burial the root <i>tāman</I> is used. For Deborah’s burial, the more usual root <i>qābar</I> is used. The opening unit in the Jacob cycle (Genesis 25:19-34) contains, among its emphases, the birth of two people, Esau and Jacob. The concluding unit in the Jacob cycle (Genesis 35:1-22) contains, among its emphases, the death of two people, Deborah [Genesis 35:8] and Rachel [Genesis 35:19]...Jacob’s life after the events at Peniel [Genesis 32:24-32] is filled with hardship: the trauma of facing Esau again [Genesis 33:1-17], the violation of Dinah [Genesis 34:1-31], the death of his late mother’s nurse [Genesis 35:8], the death of Rachel in childbirth [Genesis 35:16-20]. In the remainder of his life he will face more tragic and distressing situations. (Hamilton, <i>The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 378-79)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.aei.org/scholar/leon-r-kass/>Leon R. Kass</a> (b. 1939) joins:
<blockquote>The place of Deborah’s burial, “beneath the oak” (<i>tachath ha’allon</I>), reminds of the burial of the foreign gods and earrings, also “beneath the oak” (<i>tachath ha’elah</I>), at Shechem, during the recent purification, mentioned but a few verses earlier (Genesis 35:4). Deborah, the last remnant of the world of Paddan-aram, the old nurse of his mother who had been sent to watch over her as she left to join the people of God’s covenant, now at last departs; with her burial “beneath the oak” are symbolically laid to rest all traces of Mesopotamian influence. (Kass, <i>The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis</i>, 502)</blockquote>
Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) applies:
<blockquote>Deborah...is buried under an oak tree, which they called the Oak of Weeping (or Oak of Tears, Genesis 35:4, 8). Her tearful burial, under the tree, forms a precise literary continuity with the burial of the foreign gods under a tree (Genesis 35:4, 8). The apparent suggestion, is that, while tears have their place—they are prominent in the <i>Odyssey</i>—they can also be foreign gods, idols, and it is right at a certain point to bury them, to put them away. (Brodie, <i>Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary</I>, 342)</blockquote>
In this time of transition, Jacob’s puts his past to rest. Some burials, like Deborah’s, are good things that are relinquished with tears (Genesis 35:8). Others, like the false gods, are not (Genesis 35:4). Jacob lets go of both to embrace the future that awaits.
<p>When have you wept over loss? What is your greatest loss? What do you need to let go of in order to move forward?
<p>“Holding on is believing that there’s only a past; letting go is knowing that there’s a future.”- <a href=http://www.daphnekingma.com/>Daphne Rose Kingma</a> (b. 1942), <i>The Ten Things to Do when Your Life Falls Apart: An Emotional and Spiritual Handbook</I>, p. 74Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-68764530803596087212014-07-09T15:00:00.000-07:002014-07-09T15:00:01.617-07:00Paul the Tentmaker (Acts 18:3)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m8iO91A2VLQ/U5eM8C-RxYI/AAAAAAAAI3c/pCDMqmtJ4w8/s1600/PaulTentmaker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="153.333" width="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m8iO91A2VLQ/U5eM8C-RxYI/AAAAAAAAI3c/pCDMqmtJ4w8/s320/PaulTentmaker.jpg" /></a></div><b>What was Paul’s occupation? Tentmaker (Acts 18:3)</b>
<p>During Paul’s second missionary journey, the apostle travels from Athens to Corinth (Acts 18:1). In Corinth, he stays with a Jewish husband and wife named Aquila and Priscilla who have been banished from Rome by the Edict of Claudius (Acts 18:2). Paul also joins the couple in their trade of tentmaking (Acts 18:3).
<blockquote>And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. (Acts 18:2-3 NASB)</blockquote>
Despite not having been previously referenced, Acts casually reports that Paul works as a tentmaker as if his trade is common knowledge (Acts 18:3). This is one of the few biographical facts Acts provides about the famous missionary (Acts 18:3).
<p><a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/david-wenham>David Wenham</a> (b. 1945) compiles:
<blockquote>In the book of Acts Paul first appears on the scene as a ‘young man’ at the killing of Stephen (Acts 7:58). Acts gives us very little information about his background; but we gather that he had a Hebrew and a Roman name (Saul and Paul respectively). Born in Tarsus he was a citizen of that city (Acts 21:39, 22:3), and also a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 16:38, 22:26, 27). By trade he was a tent-maker (or leather-worker) (Acts 18:3). A ‘Pharisee and son of Pharisees’, he trained in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, ‘educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God’ (Acts 22:3, 23:6). He was fluent in Hebrew/Aramaic (Acts 22:2) but apparently associated with the Greek-speaking synagogues of Jerusalem (to judge from his involvement with Stephen; cf. Acts 6:9 and also Acts 9:29). (Bruce W. Winter [b. 1939] and <a href=http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sdhp/people/profiles/a.d.clarke>Andrew D. Clarke</a>, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus II. The Evidence of Parallels”, <i>The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Ancient Literary Setting</I> 216-17)</blockquote>
Robert L. Brawley (b. 1939) sees Acts’ character sketch as supporting its historicity:
<blockquote>Paul’s highly repetitious references to himself, especially in the Miletus address and the defense speeches, point to a literal character. In addition, Acts individuates Paul as a persecutor of Christians [Acts 9:4-5, 22:4, 7-8, 26:14-15], a Pharisee [Acts 23:6] educated under Gamaliel [Acts 22:3], a tentmaker [Acts 18:3], and a Roman citizen [Acts 22:26-29, 23:27] (cf. Jacob Jervell [1925-2014] 1972:154, 161-63)—characteristics that have no symbolic counterpart in Christianity as a whole. He faces some typical opponents, but others confront him uniquely (e.g., Acts 21:21, 28, 24:5). (Brawley, <i>Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts</I>, 156)</blockquote>
Though he enters the text eleven chapters earlier (Acts 7:58), this is the first time that Acts mentions that Paul works in this capacity (Acts 18:3). Either he has never previously plied his trade while on the mission field and he is adapting his strategy to correct a deficiency or he has always worked and there had simply been no cause to mention this activity previously.
<p>James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) speculates:
<blockquote>This is the first time in the missionary journeys of Paul, so far as we can tell, that he found it necessary to support himself by making tents...How had he managed before? No doubt those who sent him had given him sufficient money. (Boice, <i>Acts: An Expositional Commentary</I>, 306)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/kgangel/>Kenneth O. Gangel</a> (1935-2009) adds:
<blockquote>Paul wrote often about his “secular occupation” and seemed to take a good bit of heathy pride in his self-support (I Corinthians 4:12; I Thessalonians 2:9; II Corinthians 11:7). Only here, however, does the Bible tell us Paul was a tentmaker...Willingness to work to support oneself while proclaiming the gospel served as a life principle for Paul. (Gangel, <i>Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary)</I>, 303)</blockquote>
Though Paul does not specify the type of manual labor he performs in his letters, he alludes to it. <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/johnson.cfm>Luke Timothy Johnson</a> (b. 1943) introduces:
<blockquote>Paul...makes a considerable point of his “working with his hands” (I Thessalonians 2:9; II Thessalonians 3:6-8; I Corinthians 4:12, 9:6), in this following one ideal for teachers of wisdom, found among at least some of the Rabbis (see <i>Pirke Aboth</I> 2:2, 4:7; <i>Aboth de Rabbi Nathan</I> 11), as well as among certain Cynic Philosophers (see Diogenes Laertius [third century], <i>Lives of Eminent Philosophers</I> 7:168 (Cleanthes [331-232 BCE]); Epictetus [55-135], <i>Discourses</I> 3,26, 23; Musonius Rufus [first century], fragment 11). (Johnson, <i>Acts (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 322)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66210>Mikeal C. Parsons</a> (b. 1957) informs:
<blockquote>Like Paul, Aquila and Priscilla were also tentmakers [Acts 18:3]...This characterization of Paul as an artisan who worked with his hands coheres with the picture Paul paints of himself in his letters (I Corinthians 4:12, 9:6; I Thessalonians 2:9; II Thessalonians 3:6-8). If the Paul of the letters viewed such manual labor negatively (so <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] 1978, 555-64; but cf. now <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83414>Todd D. Still</a> [b. 1966] 2006, 781-95), there is no indication he does so in Acts (cf. also Acts 20:34-35). Paul stayed and worked with Aquila and Priscilla [Acts 18:2-3]. Paul moves from intellectual debate with Athenian philosophers to manual labor with Corinthian artisans, and in so doing “becomes all things to all people” (I Corinthians 9:22). His economic self-sufficiency was no doubt important, not only given the length of his stay (eighteen months; cf. Acts 18:11), but also because of Corinth’s reputation for hosting philosophical charlatans and other “peddlers” who sold their intellectual “wares” to the highest bidders...It is little wonder...for an audience familiar with such practices that Luke would characterize Paul as engaging in work for self-support in order to distinguish himself from these hucksters in much the same way that Paul in writing to the Corinthians would seek to distance himself from “so many who are peddlers of God’s word” (II Corinthians 2:17). (Parsons, <i>Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</I>, 250-51)</blockquote>
While Paul does not make a direct reference to tentmaking in his writings, he does present a related analogy. <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1936&menu_id=72>James F. Kay</a> (b. 1948) connects:
<blockquote>In II Corinthians 5:1 Paul, the tentmaker (Acts 18:3), switches his metaphors. The “body” (II Corinthians 5:8) is likened to a destructible “earthly tent” in contrast to a “house...eternal in the heavens.” Our tattered flesh, in which the treasured gospel finds embodiment, strains forward to God’s permanent provision for risen life. Treasured by God, eternal security awaits us in glory when we shall be “at home with the Lord” (II Corinthians 5:8). “So we do not lose heart” (II Corinthians 4:16, 1), and “we are always confident” (II Corinthians 5:6) amid our present struggles on behalf of the gospel. (Roger E. Van Harn [b. 1932], “Third Sunday after Pentecost, Year B”, <i>The Second Readings: Acts and the Epistles (The Lectionary Commentary: Theological Exegesis for Sunday’s Texts</I>, 253)</blockquote>
Aquila, Priscilla and Paul presumably work closely together as in this era people sharing a trade worked in close proximity (Acts 18:2-3). This practice still holds in some areas. For instance, many Oriental rug distributors sell in the same region of <a href=http://www.atlantaga.gov/>Atlanta</a>.
<p><a href=http://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/>Bruce J. Malina</a> (b. 1933) and John J. Pilch (b. 1936) report:
<blockquote>In the ancient Mediterranean world, artisans lived in their respective quarters. Hence, tentmakers lived in one place and Paul, who plied this trade, would very naturally seek lodging there. We agree with <a href=http://theolrel.unibas.ch/kopfzeile/personen/profil/profil/person/stegemann/>Ekkehard W. Stegemann</a> [b. 1945] and <a href=http://www.augustana.de/forschung/nt/emeritus-stegemann.html>Wolfgang Stegemann</a> [b. 1945] (1999:300) that by Paul’s own testimony (I Thessalonians 2:9; I Corinthians 4:12; II Corinthians 11:7) he worked hard, day and night, with fellow tradespersons for a daily wage in workshops. (Malina and Pilch, <i>Social-science Commentary on the Book of Acts</i>, 130)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.livingstonecorp.com/about-us/>Bruce B. Barton</a> (b. 1943) explains:
<blockquote>Since ancient craftsmen did not compete as merchants do today but rather formed cooperative trade guilds and often lived in close proximity, it is not surprising that Paul and Aquila worked together [Acts 18:2-3]. Because many of the trade guilds had adopted pagan practices, two God-fearing artisans would have been delighted to work together. (Barton, <i>Romans (Life Application Bible Commentary</I>, 311)</blockquote>
In addition to living in close proximity, Aquila, Priscilla and Paul share other common bonds, three especially important: race, religion and occupation. Given this commonality, it is not surprising that the trio bonds and becomes lifelong friends (Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3; I Corinthians 16:19; II Timothy 4:19).
<p>Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) deduces:
<blockquote>Aquila and Priscilla are introduced in Acts 18:2. They are important, first of all, because they enable Paul to work at his trade. Later they will travel with Paul from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18:18) and will play a role in the mission as teachers during Paul’s absence from Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Thus they are more than employers. The reference to Paul working with them at a trade in Acts 18:3 prepares for Paul’s statement in his farewell speech that he supported himself and others with his own hands (Acts 20:33-35). His statement there indicates that he did hand labor not only in Corinth but also later in Ephesus. (Tannehill, <i>The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles</I>, 221)</blockquote>
Though there is some debate, most assume that all three, including Priscilla, work as tentmakers (Acts 18:2-3). Luise Schottroff (b. 1934) researches:
<blockquote>There are two versions of Acts 18:3 in the handwritten manuscripts. One version...says that Prisca, Aquila, and Paul worked in the trade of tentmaking (“he stayed with them and they worked”). The other version uses the singular—“and he [Paul] worked”—creating the impression that Paul is living with people of the same trade and, on that basis, pursues his work...The more reliable and older version leaves the impression that Aquila, Prisca, and Paul live together and, for that reason, also work together. The change to the singular, which makes no mention of Prisca working, belongs to the recognizable intention of one part of the handwritten communication of Acts, which was to push Prisca into the background. Even Adolf von Harnack [1851-1930], who had clearly brought this matter to attention and had commented extensively on Prisca, devotes to her work the singular notice that she and her husband made tents. In more recent commentaries, I find either that Aquila and Prisca were a well-to-do couple who owned a tentmaking business and that Paul was employed by them or that Aquila and Prisca were tentmakers. Reference to Prisca’s work is missing even where the vocation of tentmaking is discussed as the vocation of Aquila and Paul or of Aquila and Prisca. The conditions under which women live are no subject matter for traditional interpretation even when the text, as in this case, speaks about them directly. Extensive analysis of and theological reflection on women’s work in the New Testament can be found particularly in the work of <a href=https://www.facebook.com/ivoni.richterreimer>Ivoni Richter Reimer</a> [b. 1959], a woman scholar of feminist liberation theology. (Schottroff, <i>Lydia’s Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity</i>, 88)</blockquote>
The work in which the trio is engaged is described by the Greek <i>skēnopoiós</I>. The term is almost universally translated as tentmakers with only the grammatical construction varying: “tentmaker(s)” (ESV, HCSB, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “tent makers” (ASV, CEV), “tent-makers” (NASB) or “tentmaking” (MSG).
<p>This is in fact, the literal meaning of the term. Though the word’s scope is broader, the translation of tentmaker is so pervasive that even contemporary paraphrases like The Message and The Voice retain it.
<p>James M.M. Francis (b. 1944) recognizes:
<blockquote>To be sure it would be more accurate to refer to Paul as a leather worker but the description of tentmaker has come to predominate, so much so that in the <a href=http://www.usa.gov/>United States of America</a> non-stipendiary ministry is regularly preferably described as a tentmaking ministry, harking back to the example of Paul [Acts 18:3]. (Francis and <a href=http://leslie-j-francis.com/>Leslie J. Francis</a> [b. 1947], “Biblical Perspectives”, <i>Tentmaking: Perspectives on Self-Supporting Ministry</i>, 1)</blockquote>
Despite the consistency among translators, the word’s precise meaning is disputed. Instead of simply indicating a tentmaker, <i>skēnopoiós</I> is commonly thought to be an umbrella term encompassing a variety of skills pertaining to leather working.
<p>The exact meaning of the term cannot be established with confidence. F.J. Foakes-Jackson (1855-1941) acknowledges:
<blockquote>Σκηνοποιός is a difficult word. It is rendered ‘tent-maker’ in the Authorized Version [Acts 18:3]. In the Vulgate there is no attempt to translate the word, which is rendered <i>scenofactoriae artis</I>. One Latin manuscript has <i>lectari</I> (<i>lectarii</I>)—makers of couches. The rendering <b>workers in leather</b>, found in some Latin versions, is open to the alleged objection that this was considered an unclean trade, and consequently one not likely to be chosen by a family of strict Pharisees, like Paul’s [Acts 26:5; Philippians 2:5]. Paul is popularly called a ‘tent-maker’; and there we must leave it. (Foakes-Jackson, <i>Acts (Moffat Commentary)</I>, 169)</blockquote>
<a href=http://library.samford.edu/about/sc/stagg.html>Frank Stagg</a> (1911-2001) admits:
<blockquote>The common trade which brought Paul and Aquila together is usually held to have been that of tentmaker [Acts 18:3]. The Greek word means just that etymologically, but early writers refer the term to leather-workers. This latter is not a likely trade for a Jew, because of the “defiling” force of skins; and cloth made of goat hair would have offered Paul a ready trade, since it was the special product of Cilicia...The reader is faced with inconclusive evidence and in honesty must plead ignorance. In view of the uncertainty of the evidence, there is little reason for departing from the traditional view that Paul was a tentmaker. (Stagg, <i>The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an Unhindered Gospel</I>, 189)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/ivoni.richterreimer>Ivoni Richter Reimer</a> (b. 1959) explicates:
<blockquote>The word σκηνοποιοί, “tentmakers,” is a New Testament hapax legomenon [Acts 18:3]. Therefore no New Testament passage can be adduced to explain it; nor is it found in the Septuagint, although there we do find σκηνή, “tent” (e.g., Genesis 4:20: “those who live in tents...”. As far as I can tell, the word σκηνοποιός is attested only twice in literary sources, and not at all in Greek inscriptions. It is a composite of the two words σκηνή and ποιέω, which in the active voice means “to make tents,” not in the sense of “pitching tents,” but in that of producing them. (Reimer, <i>Women in the Acts of Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective</I>, 199)</blockquote>
Several potential meanings have been posited. <a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1928>Beverly Roberts Gaventa</a> (b. 1948) presents:
<blockquote>Disputes persist about the exact nature of the labor Luke identifies as <i>skēnopoioi</I> (NRSV: tentmakers), whether it refers to leather work, the actual construction of tents, weaving, or even the construction of theatrical sets (<a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] 1980, 20-21; [Walter Bauer [1870-1960], F. Wilbur Gingrich [1901-1993], William F. Arndt [1880-1957] and Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] 928-29). Paul’s letters refer to his labor, but not to a specific trade (I Corinthians 4:12). Similarly, interpreters differ in their estimates of the income and status attached to this labor. That Aquila and Priscilla are able to accommodate Paul at least suggests that they do not operate at a mere subsistence level, but that fact scarcely places them among the elite. In addition, nothing in the syntax permits identifying Aquila and Paul, but not Priscilla, as laborers (<a href=https://www.facebook.com/ivoni.richterreimer>Ivoni Richter Reimer</a> [b. 1959] 1995:195-226). (Gaventa, <i>Acts (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)</i>, 256)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/>Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) contemplates:
<blockquote>Paul and these two make an immediate connection because they share the same trade (τέχνη, <i>technē</I>). I Corinthians 4:12 refers to how Paul labored with his hands to earn a living (also I Thessalonians 2:9). They are tentmakers, which likely included working with leather in general, so that they can be considered leatherworkers (Wilhelm Michaelis [1896-1965], <I>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</I> 7:393-94, speaks of primarily leatherwork, which also could include tents; Jacob Jervell [b. 1925] 1998:458). They are not weavers of goat hair as some suggest (correctly, Gerhard Schneider [1926-2004] 1982:249; William J. Larkin [1945-2014] 1995:262-63n). (Bock, <i>Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</i>, 578)</blockquote>
Some have posed the alternate theory that Paul is in actuality a stage maker. <a href=http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/theology/faculty/larry_l_welborn_26200.asp>L.L. Welborn</a> (b. 1953) relates:
<blockquote>The term used by Acts to describe their occupation, σκηνοποιός, is traditionally translated “tent-maker” [Acts 18:3]; but Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012], the editor of <i>A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament</I>, has...argued, on the basis of contemporary usage, that readers of Acts in urban areas would have thought of σκηνοποιός in reference to matters theatrical, and so he has proposed the translation “maker of stage properties.” Whether as a “tent-maker” or a “prop-maker,” Paul lived and worked with Jewish artisans in one of the little ships scattered throughout the city, perhaps in the Peribolos of Apollo just off the Lechaeum Road, or in the North Market, or along East Theater Street. (<a href=http://www.actheology.edu.au/actcollegestaff.php>Mark Harding</a> [b. 1951] and <a href=http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/department_of_ancient_history/staff/professor_alanna_nobbs/>Alanna Nobbs</a> [b. 1944], <i>All Things to All Cultures: Paul Among Jews, Greeks, and Romans</I>, 208)</blockquote>
Bartosz Adamczewski (b. 1967) directs:
<blockquote>Luke’s description of Paul as tentmaker, a trade that was hardly profitable in a great city and that, moreover, was referred to by Luke with a neologism in this meaning (σκηνοπσιός: Acts 18:3), probably alludes to II Corinthians 5:1.4. For a suggestion that this noun meant “maker of stage properties” and as such it alluded to I Corinthians 4:9, see <a href=http://web.trinity.edu/x10338.xml>William O. Walker, Jr.</a> [b. 1930], ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources’, 488-89. (Adamczewski, <i>Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts</I>, 127)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/academics/view-faculty-member.cfm?faculty_id=19715&grp_id=8946>Eckhard J. Schnabel</a> (b. 1955) counters:
<blockquote>Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] suggests that the Greek term <i>skēnopoios</I>, which is usually translated as “tent-maker,” should be interpreted in the sense of “maker of stage properties” for theatrical productions (Walter Bauer [1870-1960], F. Wilbur Gingrich [1901-1993], William F. Arndt [1880-1957] and Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012], 928-29). Note, however, the Jewish objections toward the theater; cf. Emil Schürer [1844-1910], <i>History of the Jewish People</I>, 2:54-55. (Schnabel, <i>Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods</I>, 105)</blockquote>
Some have posited that Paul’s trade is that of weaving in conjunction with a purported connection to his home territory, Cilicia (Acts 21:39, 22:3, 23:34). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) opines:
<blockquote>Paul’s trade was probably connected with the chief manufacture of his native province, <i>cilicium</I>, a cloth of goats’ hair from which were made coverings designed to give protection against cold and wet. While the etymological sense of σκηνοποιός is “tent-maker,” it was used in the wider sense of “leather-worker” (cf. English “saddler,” which has a wider sense than “maker of saddles”). <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944], who puts Paul’s manual work in a Hellenistic social setting (cf. “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of his Social Class,” <a href=http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/journals_jbl_noLogin.aspx><i>Journal of Biblical Literature</I></a> 97 [1978], pp. 555-64; “The Workshop as a Social Setting for Paul’s Missionary Preaching,” <a href=http://catholicbiblical.org/publications/cbq><i>Catholic Biblical Quarterly</I></a> 41 [1979], pp.438-50; and <i>The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship</I> [<a href=http://www.phila.gov/>Philadelphia</a>, 1980]), finds a polemic note in Paul’s own references to it; whether that is so or not, there is no such note in Luke’s present reference. (Bruce, <i>The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary</I>, 392)</blockquote>
<a href=http://davidgpeterson.com/>David G. Peterson</a> (b. 1944) refutes:
<blockquote>Some have argued that ‘Paul’s trade was probably connected with the chief manufacture of his native province, <i>cilicium</I>, a cloth of goats’ hair from which were made coverings designed to give protection against cold and wet’. However, the same occupation is ascribed to Priscilla and Aquila, though they were from Pontus [Acts 18:2], and Paul probably did not learn his trade until he began his formal theological education in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). It is more likely that his trade involved working with leather rather than with weaving. (Peterson, <i>The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 508)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ciu.edu/discover-ciu/who-we-are/faculty-staff/christopher-little>Christopher R. Little</a> (b. 1959) expounds:
<blockquote>The better one understands Saul the Jew the more clearly one comprehends Paul the apostle (Martin Hengel [1926-2009] 1991:xiii). This is especially true in terms of his trade. Some have supposed that Paul’s trade should be linked to his upbringing in Tarsus where it is known that the tentmaking material <i>cilicium</I> was manufactured (Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890] 1883:81-82; J.B. Lightfoot [1828-1889]1895:27; Colin J. Hemer [1930-1987] 1989:119; <a href=http://www.dts.edu/read/roy-zuck-tribute/>Roy B. Zuck</a> [1932-2013] 1998:22). However, there are several reasons to doubt this viewpoint...Paul spent his childhood in Jerusalem not Tarsus...In relation to this <a href=http://www.nbseminary.ca/faculty-matters/brianrapske>Brian Raspke</a> [b. 1952] says: “Trying to connect Paul with Tarsus/Cilicia in this way is irrelevant. He moved to Jerusalem while still very young...The fact that the same occupation is ascribed to Aquila and Priscilla though they are from Pontus shows the link to be unnecessary” (1994:107). Also, it is misleading to associate Paul with <i>cilicium</I>. This material, which derived it name from the province of Cilicia, was “a coarse cloth woven from goats’ hair” (Wilhelm Michaelis [1896-1965] 1971:394). It was used in the production of tent-fabric and carpets (Michaelis 1971:394). Because weaving was an occupation reserved for women, Jewish men who undertook this trade were disqualified from the priesthood and even despised (Michaelis 1971:394; <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83407>W. Hulitt Gloer</a> [b. 1950] 1988:792; Raspke 1994:107). “It is therefore highly improbable that Paul would have chosen to be, or have been trained as, a weaver by profession” (Rapske 1994:107). Thus, “The thesis that Paul wove tentcloth from the goats’ hair...should once and for all be dropped” (<a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] 1980:66). (Little, <i>Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twenty-First Century</I>, 27)</blockquote>
Ernest Haenchen (1894-1975) concurs:
<blockquote>It was natural to conjecture that Paul in his homeland had learned the weaving of <i>cilicium</I> as a trade. But <i>cilicium</I> served neither exclusively nor particularly for tents; they were rather made chiefly from leather: Theodor Zahn [1838-1933] 633. We must with Joachim Jeremias [1900-1979] (<i>Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft</I> 30 (1931), 299) understand by σκηνποιός a leather-worker. This was already the explanation of the ancients with their explanation σκυτοτόμος (Rufinus [340-410], probably after Origen [184-253]) and σκηνοράψος (John Chrystostom [347-407]): Zahn 632, n. 10. (Haenchen, <i>The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary</I>, 534)</blockquote>
The weaver’s tools would likely be too cumbersome to transport for a persistent traveler such as Paul. <a href=http://www.nbseminary.ca/faculty-matters/brianrapske>Brian M. Raspke</a> (b. 1952) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>If Paul’s overland journeys were generally undertaken on foot, the recently popular explanation of Acts 18:3,that Paul was a weaver of tentcloth made from goats hair or linen, whatever its other problems, is rendered even less probable. Such an occupation, requiring tools and equipment inconvenient in size, weight and shape, is hardly in keeping with the impression in Acts of a highly mobile Paul — even less so a pedestrian like Paul. The maker/repairer of tents and other leather products, carrying his bag of cutting tools, awls, sharpening stone and such, presents a more consistent and more credible picture. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-gill/24/39/ba2>David W. J. Gill</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/7>Conrad Gempf</a> [b. 1955], “Acts, Travel and Shipwreck”, <i>The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting: Graeco-Roman Setting</I>, 7)</blockquote>
The most prevalent theory identifies Paul as a leather worker (Acs 18:3). <a href=http://www.nbseminary.ca/faculty-matters/brianrapske>Brian Raspke</a> (b. 1952) argues:
<blockquote>Acts...affirms that he [Paul] plied a trade (Acts 20:33-35) and specifies that he was a σκηνοποιοὶς (Acts 18:3). This term, appearing only this once in the New Testament, is also rare in non-New Testament sources. Wilhelm Michaelis [1896-1965] writes: “...one cannot rule out the possibility that σκηνοποιοὶς is used for the trade of “tent-maker.” For one thing this meaning is wholly within the range allowed by the etymology and it is indeed the most natural, since a construct with -ποιοὶς can hardly denote a casual and not a permanent activity.”...It seems best to understand that Paul was a leather-worker. First, tents during the period with which we are concerned were usually made of leather and not textiles. Second, the earliest versional renderings noted above by and large presume that Paul’s trade, whatever it actually entailed, had something to do with working leather. Third, while tanning was considered an unclean trade, no stigma attached to the Jew who worked already-prepared leather. Finally, the tools needed to work leather, certainly less onerous a burden to carry from place to place than weaver’s equipment, lend themselves well to the picture of Paul found in Acts. We may cite <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944]’s comments in summary: “Leatherworking, then, was Paul’s trade; the specialized title ‘tentmaker’ reflects a widespread tendency among artisans to use specialized titles, even though they made more products than their titles would suggest. We must thus picture Paul as making tents and other products of leather.” (Rapske, <i>The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Paul in Roman Custody</I>, 106-08)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ciu.edu/discover-ciu/who-we-are/faculty-staff/christopher-little>Christopher R. Little</a> (b. 1959) bolsters:
<blockquote>Paul is reported to have been a “σκηνοποιός.” This term, translated as “tent-maker” (Acts 18:3), is best rendered “leather-worker” (Wilhelm Michaelis [1896-1965] 1971:394). The testimony of early church fathers confirms the view “that Paul was a leatherworker of some sort” (<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83407>W. Hulitt Gloer</a> [b. 1950] 1988:792). Leatherworkers produced a wide variety of good from leather, not just tents (<a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] 1980:21; Gloer 1988:792). According to Ronald Hock: “Leatherworking involved two essential tasks: <i>cutting</i> the leather, which required round-edge and straight-edge knives; and <i>sewing</I> the leather, which required various awls” (1980:24). Hence, Paul is more accurately described as a “leatherworker” who carried the easily portable tools of his trade during his missionary travels in order to sustain himself (Hock 1980:25; <a href=http://www.nbseminary.ca/faculty-matters/brianrapske>Brian Raspke</a> [b. 1952] 1994:107). (Little, <i>Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twenty-First Century</I>, 27)</blockquote>
This task required arduous labor if not skill. Marie Noël Keller (b. 1943) describes:
<blockquote>Today most scholars think all three missionaries worked with leather, and they picture the three of them working for long hours, bent forward on a stool by a workbench. All that was needed was a set of basic tools, which included round-edge and straight-edge knives to cut the leather and awls, needles, and thread to sew it. So little was necessary, it made “tenting” a portable thriving trade. Indeed, Acts 28:30 may even imply Paul worked when he was in custody in Rome. More onerous was the abundance of strength and patience that were also needed, for as Paul later comments, “We grow weary from the work of our own hands” (I Corinthians 4:12 NRSV). (Keller, <i>Priscilla and Aquila: Paul’s Coworkers in Christ Jesus</i>, 15)</blockquote>
An advantage to leather working is that the trade was in steady demand during Paul’s lifetime. <a href=http://www.ebaf.edu/?page_id=553&lang=en>Jerome Murphy-O’Connor</a> (b. 1935) enlightens:
<blockquote>In cities several types of awning were in demand. They all involved sewing strips of canvas of various weights together. Those in sailcloth shading the theatre and forum could be moved backwards and forwards on guy wires. The courtyards of private houses had to be protected from the summer sun. Inscribed awnings both advertised and shaded shop fronts. Those who went to the beach used linen pavilions to provide shade without impeding the cooling breezes...The market for tents in the strict sense was also far from negligible. Inns needed them to accommodate overflow customers, which occurred on the occasion of great festivals. Shrewd travellers took the precaution of providing themselves with tents in case an accident should prevent them from reaching an inn at night. If they planned to travel any distance by boat, tents were indispensable. There were no ferries, and cargo boats had no cabins. Without tent deck passengers could not protect themselves from sun or spray, and had nowhere to sleep when the ship docked at nightfall...Every town with a temple had its festival, when traders erected their leather or canvas booths around the sanctuary...Minor repairs were also a valuable source of income...Paul had chosen to arm himself with a skill that virtually guaranteed him jobs on every road he walked and on every sea he sailed. (Murphy-O’Connor, <i>Paul: His Story</I>, 29-30)</blockquote>
This demand might have been especially high in Corinth. <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-gill/24/39/ba2>David W. J. Gill</a> (b. 1946) reveals:
<blockquote>If Paul stayed in Corinth for eighteen months (Acts 18:11) and was present during the governorship of Gallio [Acts 18:12, 14, 17], one of the events he would have witnessed would have been the biennial agonistic festival held at nearby Isthmia and which was the responsibility of the colony. This festival was linked to the sanctuary of Poseidon where the temple was refurbished in the early days of the colony with its interior being partly revetted in marble. Oscar Broneer [1894-1992] has suggested that as Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers or σκηνοπιοι (Acts 18:3), they may been involved with the making of awnings or <i>skenai</I> for the festival of Isthmia which would have been held in April-May 51. Certainly this is an attractive possibility, though they could have been making <i>skenai</I> for the theatre and other such areas at Corinth itself. (Gill and <a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/7>Conrad Gempf</a> [b. 1955], “Achaia”, <i>The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting: Graeco-Roman Setting</I>, 452)</blockquote>
There are many advantages that accompany Paul’s selection of this particular trade. <a href=http://www.ebaf.edu/?page_id=553&lang=en>Jerome Murphy-O’Connor</a> (b. 1935) evaluates:
<blockquote>To us this seems a rather bizarre choice. Paul exercised his ministry in an urban environment, and what need have city dwellers of tents? From a first-century perspective, however, it was a very clever decision...The skill involved was minimal, so was quickly learned. It was essentially the ability to cut and shape lengths of leather and canvas, and then to sew them together with a neat turned-over seam. The tools were simple and light. Paul needed a half-moon knife to cut heavy leather of canvas, an awl to make the holes to take the waxed thread, and curved needles. The lot fitted neatly into a small wallet. Exercise of this trade developed muscular shoulders and strong calloused hands. The stitch was set by a sudden outward jerk of both hands into which the thread bit. Little wonder that Paul could write only with awkward large letters (Galatians 6:11)—a sign that he had plenty of work. (Murphy-O’Connor, <i>Paul: His Story</I>, 29)</blockquote>
Some have seen some symbolic connection associated with Paul’s secular trade (Acts 18:3). Bernard Aubert (b. 1972) bridges:
<blockquote>Paul’s occupation as a tentmaker is relevant to the issue of his relationship to the countryside. <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] argues that Paul’s occupation as a tentmaker indicates his willingness to lower himself on the social scale. In the context of the city, Paul’s manual labor corresponds to the labors of shepherds. Consequently, there is a loose correlation between Paul’s occupation (Acts 20:34) and the servant-shepherding ministry (Acts 20:19, 28). More importantly, whether “tentmaking” (Acts 18:3) refers to work with “goats’ hair” (<i>cilicium</I>) or “leatherworking,” Paul was working with material from flocks. Thus Paul in his trade, must have been at least indirectly connected with herdsmen responsible for raising animals. (Aubert, <i>The Shepherd-Flock Motif in the Miletus Discourse (Acts 20:17-38) Against Its Historical Background</i>, 46)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.spu.edu/academics/school-of-theology/seattle-pacific-seminary/seminary-faculty/wall-robert>Robert Wall</a> (b. 1947) consociates:
<blockquote>There are a few intriguing allusions to the first part of the Amos citation [Amos 9:11-12] (Acts 15:16) that facilitate a more reflexive reading between the two. For example, the promise the God ‘will rebuild the tent (σκηνήν) of David’ is picked up in Acts 18:3 where Paul’s occupation is described as a ‘tentmaker’ (σκηνοποιός). The irony of this narrative detail is clear: Paul is actually God’s appointed ‘tentmaker’ by whose Gentile mission the Davidic/Messianic kingdom is reconstituted and restored according to Scripture (<i>cf.</I>, Acts 1:6). (I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] and <a href=http://davidgpeterson.com/>David G. Peterson</a> [b. 1944)], “Israel and the Gentile Mission in Acts and Paul: A Canonical Approach”, <i>Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts</I>, 450)</blockquote>
The Bible does not state how Paul acquires his vocational skill. Two primary explanations have been offered. <a href=http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/>Gerd Lüdemann</a> (b. 1946) supplies:
<blockquote>Paul’s activity as a tentmaker or leatherworker (Acts 18:3; cf. I Thessalonians 2:9; I Corinthians 4:12, 9:6-18, etc.) either derives from the rabbinical custom of learning a trade or stems from a familial context, likely from his father. If the latter is true, “Paul’s family may have acted in accordance with specifically Jewish prescriptions, but we need to realize that the plausibility structure for their action extended far beyond the Jewish community.” (Lüdemann, <i>Paul: The Founder of Christianity</I>, 94)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ciu.edu/discover-ciu/who-we-are/faculty-staff/christopher-little>Christopher R. Little</a> (b. 1959) details:
<blockquote>There is a difference of opinion on how Paul would have acquired his trade in Jerusalem (<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83407>W. Hulitt Gloer</a> [b. 1950] 1988:792). Some assert that Paul obtained it during his studies under Gamaliel in connection with the Rabbinic injunction to combine the study and teaching of the Torah with the practice of a trade (Joachim Jeremias [1900-1979] 1969:112-13; Martin Hengel [1926-2009] 1991:16; <a href=http://www.nbseminary.ca/faculty-matters/brianrapske>Brian Raspke</a> [b. 1952] 1004:107). However, <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] contends that “the ideal of combining Torah and a trade is difficult to establish much earlier than the middle of the second century A.D., that is, long after Paul” (1980:22; cf. <a href=http://www.ebaf.edu/?page_id=553&lang=en>Jerome Murphy-O’Connor</a> [b. 1935] 1996:86). Others believe that “since it was a general rule that the son followed the trade of his father” (Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890] 1883:81), it is best to see Paul coming form a long line of leatherworkers (<a href=https://www.facebook.com/richard.wallace.5099>Richard Wallace</a> [b. 1941] and Wynne Williams [b. 1941] 1998:140). In this fashion, Paul’s profession would have been passed on to him by his father (<a href=http://portretten.library.uu.nl/en/portretten/vanunnik/bio.html>W.C. Van Unnik</a> [1910-1978] 1973:300; Gloer 1988:792) in accordance with the common maxim of the day: “Whoever does not teach his son a craft teaches him to be a robber” (Arthur T. Geoghegan [1914-2006] 1945:108). Even though there is disagreement on the manner in which Paul obtained his trade, the reasons for which he was taught it are quite clear. (Little, <i>Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twenty-First Century</I>, 28)</blockquote>
Traditionally Paul’s tentmaking is consider a product of his religious training. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) educates:
<blockquote>Paul’s maintaining himself by his own manual work is traditionally illustrated by the rabbinical insistence that religious instruction should be gratuitous (cf. <i>Pirqê ’Abôt</I> 4.7: “Rabbi Zadok [first century] said, ‘...Make not of the Torah a crown with which to aggrandize thyself, nor a spade with which to dig.’ So also used Hillel [110 BE-10 CE] to say, ‘He who makes a worldly use of the crown of the Torah shall waste away.’ Hence thou mayest infer that whosoever derives a profit for himself from the words of the Torah is helping on his own destruction”). A later teacher, Gamaliel III [third century CE], said that the study of the Torah was excellent if combined with a secular occupation (<i>Pirqê ’Abôt</I> 2.2). Greek culture, by contrast, tended to despise manual labor; an exception is presented by scientific writers, who speak respectfully of τεχνιται. <a href=http://www.shef.ac.uk/biblicalstudies/people/alexander>Loveday C.A. Alexander</a> finds in the attitude of scientific writers a possible background for Luke’s totally matter-of-fact record of Paul’s practice her (“Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing,” <a href=http://www.brill.com/novum-testamentum><i>Novum Testamentum</I></a>, pp. 48-74, especially p. 70). Cf. Acts 20:34, and Paul’s reference to his policy in I Thessalonians 2:9; I Corinthians 9:12b-18; II Corinthians 11:7-12. (Bruce, <i>The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary</I>, 391-92)</blockquote>
<a href=http://open.biola.edu/authors/lee-martin-mcdonald>Lee Martin McDonald</a> (b. 1942) interjects:
<blockquote>In the Mishnah, a Rabban Gamaliel [third century], son of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, says: “Excellent is study of the Law together with worldly occupation, for toil in them both puts sin out of mind. But all study of the Law without labour comes to naught at the last and brings sin in its train. And let all them that labour with the congregation labour with them for the sake of heaven, for the merit of their fathers supports them and their righteousness endures for ever (<i>m. Aboth</I> 2.2, Herbert Danby [1889-1953] translation)...Similar attitudes were found among the Greeks and those philosophers who also worked with their hands were praised. The practical Stoic philosopher Epictetus (ca. 54-120 A.D.) admonished all in his guild to combine their scholarly activity with practical work. Showing his disdain for those who refused to work with their hands he concludes that they, “have only to learn the life of healthy men—how the slaves live, the workmen, the genuine philosophers, how Socrates [470-399 BCE] lived—he too with a wife and children—how Diogenes [412-323 BCE] lived, how Cleanthes [331-232 BCE], who combined going to school with pumping water. If this is what you want, you will have it everywhere, and will live with full confidence” (<i>Discourses</I> 3.26.23-24, <i>Loeb Classical Library</i>). He goes on to ask why those in his guild have made themselves so useless that no one would take them in. (<i>Discourses</I> 3.26.23-24, <i>Loeb Classical Library</i>). (<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/>Craig A. Evans</a> [b. 1952], <i>Acts—Philemon (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary)</i>, 125-26)</blockquote>
Ernest Haenchen (1894-1975) objects:
<blockquote>At this juncture it is usually pointed out...that the Rabbis were in the habit of learning a trade. But Paul was not a Rabbi and also did not want to imitate the Rabbis: Alfred Loisy [1857-1940] 689. (Haenchen, <i>The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary</I>, 534)</blockquote>
Sadami Takayama (b. 1955) exposes:
<blockquote>In Jewish tradition any occupation was considered to be a distraction from the study of the Law. All the evidence of rabbis practising trades originates in the post-AD 70 period when conditions in Jerusalem had starkly changed. The rabbis had to support themselves by working and this necessity created a maxim, “All study of Law without (worldly) labour comes to naught at the last and brings sin in its train. (Takayama, <i>Shinran [1173-1263]’s Conversion in the Light of Paul's Conversion</I>, 159)</blockquote>
Paul’s performing manual labor is a far cry from his intellectualizing with philosophers in Athens seen in the previous pericope (Acts 17:16-34). There has been much discussion regarding the perception Paul would have accrued working as a secular artisan.
<p>Marianne Palmer Bonz (b. 1942) reports:
<blockquote>As Richard I. Pervo [b. 1942] has so eloquently observed, it is absurd to claim (as Luke does) that Paul was a tentmaker who somehow gained the favor of Ephesian Asiarchs (<i>Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles</I> [<a href=http://www.phila.gov/>Philadelphia</a>: <a href=http://fortresspress.com/>Fortress Press</a>, 1987], 10). (Bonz, <i>The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic</I>, 169)</blockquote>
<p><a href=http://davidgpeterson.com/>David G. Peterson</a> (b. 1944) investigates:
<blockquote>F.F. Bruce [1910-1990], 391-92, supports the view that Luke’s background is that of the Greek scientific writers who were more respectful of manual labourers. However, <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944], <i>The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship</I>, 36, argues that tentmakers belonged to a class of humble artisans who were looked down upon by aristocrats and some leisured intellectuals. Hock, 42, discusses the workshop as a social setting for Paul’s missionary preaching, but <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradleyblue>Bradley Blue</a> [b. 1960], ‘Acts and the House Church’, in <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-gill/24/39/ba2>David W. J. Gill</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/7>Conrad Gempf</a> [b. 1955], <i>The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting</I>, 172-77, argues for the household as the standard base for ministry outside the synagogue. Cf. Hock, ‘Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of his Social Class’, <a href=http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/journals_jbl_noLogin.aspx><i>Journal of Biblical Literature</I></a> 97 (1978), 555-64...Jewish tradition encouraged rabbis to support themselves with some other occupation, while giving religious instruction (cf. <i>Pirke ’Aboth</I> 2,2, 4.7). Greek culture, however, tended to despise manual labour, which makes Luke’s matter-of-fact record of Paul’s practice...unusual. ‘By lodging with an artisan couple and, beyond that, actually joining them in their trade, Paul suddenly appears no longer as the rising star among noble ladies and gentlemen and lofty academicians.’ In his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders, Paul makes much of the fact that he worked with his own hands, to support himself and his companions, while engaging in ministry (Acts 20:33-35). Although he urged Christians to share all good things with those who taught them (Galatians 6:6). Paul did not normally avail himself to such rights (I Corinthians 9:3-18). Two reasons are given in Acts 20:33-35 for what we know to have been his practice in Ephesus, Thessalonica (I Thessalonians 2:3-9; II Thessalonians 3:6-8), and Corinth (I Corinthians 4:12, 9:6; II Corinthians 11:7). Negatively, Paul sought to avoid any hint of covetousness. Positively, he was determined to help ‘the weak’, inspired by an otherwise unrecorded saying of Jesus about the blessedness of giving instead of receiving [Acts 20:35]. Paul’s behaviour thus reflected his trust in God and God’s generosity to his people, demonstrating two important aspects of the message he preached. (Peterson, <i>The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary)</I>, 508-09)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.btsr.edu/about/staff-faculty/f-scott-spencer/>F. Scott Spencer</a> (b. 1956) delineates:
<blockquote>To determine the position of Priscilla, Aquila and Paul in Corinthian society, we must understand the nature and status of their ‘tentmaking’ trade. The main skills associated with the craft involved the cutting and stitching of leather material with specially designed knives and awls. It was hard work, demanding long hours hunched over a workbench to make ends meet. As for their social position, <a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] has demonstrated that tentmakers belonged to a class of humble artisans clustered in the marketplace who were looked down upon by aristocrats and some leisured intellectuals...“Stigmatized as slavish, uneducated, and often useless, artisans [like tentmakers], to judge from scattered references, were frequently reviled or abused, often victimized, seldom if ever invited to dinner, never accorded status, and even excluded from one Stoic utopia (Hock, 36)”...By lodging with an artisan couple and, beyond that, actually joining in their trade, Paul suddenly appears no longer as the rising star among noble ladies and gentlemen and lofty academicians. Rather, he restores his links with lowly cloth-handlers, like Lydia (cf. Acts 16:13-15), and builds new tie with the rabble of market laborers (<i>agoraioi</I>) who previously were turned against him (cf. Acts 17:4-5)...It is thus becoming increasingly difficult to construct a consistent portrait of Paul’s social identity in Acts. We seem to be facing a more idealistic than realistic image of the great missionary as a kind of ‘everyman’, able to span the spectrum of human society. It is, nonetheless, an image in keeping with one who himself claimed in correspondence with the Corinthians: ‘I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some’ (I Corinthians 9:22; cf. I Corinthians 9:19-23). (Spencer, <i> Acts (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary)</I>, 178-79)</blockquote>
Paul’s willingness to perform manual labor has called his social standing and background into question. <a href=http://www.ciu.edu/discover-ciu/who-we-are/faculty-staff/christopher-little>Christopher R. Little</a> (b. 1959) inquires:
<blockquote>Church fathers such as John Chrystostom [347-407], Gregory of Nyssa [335-394], and Theodoret [393-457] believed that Paul, in view of his labor-intensive lifestyle as a leatherworker, fell among the lower social levels of the first-century world (<a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] 1978:556). Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937] renewed this position in the modern era by postulating that Paul “came from the unliterary lower classes and remained one of them...[H]e belongs far more to the middle and lower classes than to the upper class...[And] to the great mass of the weary and heavy-laden” (1926:48, 51, 74). However, in rejection of this hypothesis, a new consensus has emerged in contemporary scholarship regarding Paul’s place in ancient society. This place can be ascertained by examining his social status, his education, and his wealth. (Little, <i>Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twenty-First Century</I>, 7)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.denverseminary.edu/about/faculty/member/86444/>Craig L. Blomberg</a> (b. 1955) inspects:
<blockquote>From his autobiographical remarks in the epistles and from the data of Acts, we learn that Paul’s own socio-economic background seems to have been relatively prosperous, at least by ancient standards. Tutored in Jerusalem under the rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), after a probable elementary-school education in Tarsus, a centre of Greek culture, Paul would have been among the top few percent in his society in terms of level of education. He also had training in leather-working, of which tent-making was one common application (Acts 18:3). As one who inherited Roman citizenship from his father, he also would have been among just a handful of non-Romans in the empire with this privilege (Acts 22:28). <a href=http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/persons/e-g-clark(0cbe03de-bbd5-4dc1-82d4-6ea06a414354).html>Gillian Clark</a> (1985:111) concludes, ‘The chances are that Paul, though prepared for the sake of the gospel to identify himself with the artisans, was at home in the more prosperous levels of society.’ Nils Dahl [1911-2001] (1977:35) occurs, adding that Paul probably came from a rather well-to-do family. (Blomberg, <i>Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions</I>, 177)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.fresno.edu/faculty/ryan-schellenberg>Ryan S. Schellenberg</a> considers:
<blockquote>Luke’s Paul is evidently a man of elevated status: he is always aristocratically self-possessed; he comfortably converses with the likes of Felix and Festus [Acts 24:10-23, 25:6-12]; he capably addresses the Athenians in the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34). Such a man could only have been a tentmaker incidentally. And, indeed, this is precisely how Luke, like many subsequent biographers, deals with Paul’s labor: he mentions it in passing (Acts 18:3). (Schellenberg, <i>Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10-13</I>, 20-21)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.benwitherington.com/>Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) illuminates:
<blockquote>Some Cynic philosophers were known to frequent workshops, and so even when Paul did practice his trade, it would not necessarily have sent the signal that he was a person of low social status. Martin Hengel [1926-2009] makes reference to a man named Isaac, a linen merchant from Tarsus who was an elder in the Jewish community in Jaffa. He was, in short, a relatively high-status person in his own community, yet like Paul he was not reluctant to practice a trade—indeed, his work is proudly mentioned on this tombstone! But also like Paul, Isaac had lived in more than one social world, and while he may have had high status in the microcosmic Jewish community in Tarsus and in the Holy Land, elsewhere he would have been seen as a Jew and an artisan, which in the anti-Semitic environment of the Roman Empire would have represented two strikes against him. (Witherington, <i>The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus</I>, 129)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/>John B. Polhill</a> (b. 1939) footnotes:
<blockquote><a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] notes that Paul’s references to his work by such terms as “enslaved” (see I Corinthians 9:19) and “demeaning myself” (see II Corinthians 11:7) and being “a spectacle to the world” (see I Corinthians 4:9, 12) reflect a decidedly upper-class attitude toward work and may, along with Roman citizenship, indicate his coming from a higher social level (“Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of his Social Class,” <a href=http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/journals_jbl_noLogin.aspx><i>Journal of Biblical Literature</I></a> 97 [1978], pp. 555-64). (Pohill, <i>Acts (New American Commentary)</I>, 381)</blockquote>
While his social standing is debated, Acts certainly presents Paul as being self sufficient. <a href=http://www.cst.edu/academics/faculty/profile/tom-phillips/>Thomas E. Phillips</a> characterizes:
<blockquote>Although Paul’s hosts in Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla, are said to share a common vocation with him, Acts never records any of Paul’s traveling companions engaging in labor of any kind. Barnabas, Paul’s traveling companion in Acts 13:2-15:39, may have been independently wealthy [Acts 4:36-37], but according to Acts, Paul provided economic support for his later traveling companions, including Silas, Timothy, and the narrator of Acts. The Paul of Acts is a tentmaker who takes pride not only in the financial independence that the revenue from his labor provides [Acts 18:3], but also in his ability to support his fellow missionaries and the poor within the community [Acts 20:33-35]. The Paul of Acts experiences shipwrecks [Acts 27:27-44], beatings [Acts 16:22], and persecution, but he does not experience unaddressed physical needs for food, clothing, or shelter. In fact, the Paul of Acts has sufficient resources that he can claim to “give” rather than “receive” (Acts 20:35)...In Acts, Paul, the tentmaker and Christian missionary, is a hardworking and generous artisan. In fact, the degree of Paul’s generosity is somewhat surprising for a mere artisan in the Greco-Roman world. Not only can Paul support his fellow missionaries, but upon his arrival in Jerusalem, James assumes that Paul can afford to pay the expenses associated with the fulfillment of a vow for himself and four other persons (Acts 21:23-24), and the governor Felix assumes that Paul could afford to offer him a bribe for his freedom (Acts 24:26). Paul’s apparently flush financial situation in Acts is hardly consistent with the resources typically derived from work as an artisan, a fact that has caused some interpreters to speculate that the Paul of Acts had benefited from inherited wealth. (Phillips, <i>Paul, His Letters, and Acts</I>, 115-16)</blockquote>
While there has been some discussion about how Paul’s day job would have been perceived, it cannot be denied that he is proud of his labor (Acts 20:33-35). He owns it. He knows who he is: Paul is a worker.
<p>The fact that Paul works may be more important than the specific job he holds. Despite being stated so incidentally, it is remarkable that Acts presents one of its leading figures engaging in manual labor (Acts 18:3).
<p><a href=http://www.shef.ac.uk/biblicalstudies/people/alexander>Loveday Alexander</a> divulges:
<blockquote>Celsus [second century]’s complaint about the Christians in the second century includes the fact that they meet in ‘cobblers’ shops and fullers’ shops’, and Tertullian [160-225] lists a wide variety of crafts practised by Christians (and causing problems of conscience) including those of plasterers, painters, marble masons and bronze-workers. Luke’s own narrative features a number of craftsmen and women in leading roles: Aquila and Priscilla, Lydia and Paul himself are presented as artisans or traders (Acts 16:14, 18:1-3)...For Luke, as much as for the other evangelists, Jesus the carpenter’s son and Paul the leather-worker figure without a trace of irony as actors in and mediators of events of world-shattering religious significance. (Alexander, <i>The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1:1-14 and Acts 1:1</I>, 177)</blockquote>
The tentmaker becomes a world maker (Acts 18:3). In Christianity, all have a chance to serve and perform great works regardless of social standing.
<p>Which bonds Paul and Aquila and Priscilla more, shared religious beliefs or mutual work (Acts 18:2-3)? Where have you seen similar artisans working in close proximity? In today’s world, is it natural to bond with people of the same trade? Who are you closer to, fellow church members or your coworkers? What is Paul’s motivation for performing manual labor; is it out of financial necessity, to correct a perceived problem in his ministry, both or neither? How many of the ideas from Paul’s Jewish education did he retain after he accepted Jesus? In what ways is Paul a model for contemporary tentmakers?
<p>Many have imagined Paul conducting workplace evangelism while Paul “moonlights” as a tentmaker. William J. Larkin (1945-2014) speculates:
<blockquote>Paul engaged in leatherworking to offer his gospel without charge and model a good work ethic (Acts 20:34-35; I Corinthians 4:12, 9:15, 18; I Thessalonians 2:9; II Thessalonians 3:8). He probably used his workshop as a place of witness, as some Greek philosophers used theirs as a teaching venue (<a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] 1979). His departure from the workshop and exclusive devotion to preaching after Timothy and Silas’s arrival from Macedonia probably shows that he did not view his leatherworking as essential to his evangelism strategy (Acts 18:5). (Larkin, <i>Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series)</I>, 263)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.cts.edu/faculty/cts-faculty.aspx?StaffId=5>Ronald J. Allen</a> (b. 1949) agrees:
<blockquote>Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul are, evidently, all tentmakers [Acts 18:2-3]... They worked in the marketplace. People often came to the market place to discuss philosophy in the stalls operated by workers. The detail that Paul was a tentmaker helps explain how the missionary financed the mission and also how he witnessed in the marketplace. (Allen, <i>Acts of the Apostles (Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries)</I>, 143)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/grace.p.barnes.7>Grace Preedy Barnes</a> (b. 1938) discusses:
<blockquote>While the reader might assume that Paul roved about looking for people to argue with (Acts 18:4), archaeology reveals that tentmaking stalls tended to be in or near markets in Corinth, allowing ample opportunity for Paul to engage with those who passed by or sought to do business. Thus Paul probably shared his faith naturally while at work. This suggests another emerging principle: All work is sacred if done unto the Lord and for God’s purposes in this world. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/G/Robert-Gallagher>Robert L. Gallagher</a> [b. 1949] and <a href=http://www.apu.edu/clas/faculty/phertig/>Paul Hertig</a> [b. 1955], “The Art of Finishing Well: Paul as Servant Leader, Acts 18:1-28 and Acts 20:17-38”, <i>Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context</i>, 242)</blockquote>
<a href=https://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/william-willimon>William H. Willimon</a> (b. 1946) preaches:
<blockquote>From Athens Paul journeys to another great city of Greece—Corinth, where he is the guest of two Jewish refugees from Rome, Aquila and Priscilla [Acts 18:2-3]...While in their home, Paul practices his tentmaking trade (Acts 18:3, cf. I Thessalonians 2:9; II Thessalonians 3:7-8), though his work does not hinder his preaching in the Corinthian synagogue (Acts 18:4), particularly after the arrival of Silas and Timothy (with a gift? II Corinthians 11:9; Philippians 4:15). Paul regards his tentmaking work as an opportunity for evangelization: “...You remember, brothers, our work and toil. It was while we were laboring day and night, in order not to burden any of you, that we proclaimed to you the gospel of God” (I Thessalonians 2:9; author’s translation). Christian witness is not only for the synagogue or place of Sunday worship. (Willimon, <i>Acts (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 145)</blockquote>
It is entirely possible that the two buildings where Paul worked and taught were one and the same, particularly if Aquila and Priscilla hosted a house church (Romans 16:3-5). <a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/>John B. Polhill</a> (b. 1939) reports:
<blockquote>Paul...may have witnessed in the context of the workshop as he pursued his tent-making trade. Homes were often connected with shops. Paul thus may have lodged, witnessed, and worked all in the same place when he took up with Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts 18:3). (Polhill, <i>Paul and His Letters</I>, 99)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradleyblue>Bradley Blue</a> (b. 1960) rejects:
<blockquote><a href=http://store.fortresspress.com/store/contributor/5116/Ronald-F-Hock>Ronald F. Hock</a> [b. 1944] attempted to demonstrate that a shop such as the one Paul would have shared with Aquila ‘...was recognized as a conventional social setting for intellectual discourse’ and would have been suitable for Paul’s missionary purposes as an Artisan-Missionary. Paul, however, seems to have preferred the local synagogue or a publicly recognized location which was used exclusively for the purpose of preaching. (<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-gill/24/39/ba2>David W. J. Gill</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.lst.ac.uk/faculty/faculty-member/7>Conrad Gempf</a> [b. 1955], “Acts and the House Church”, <i>The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting: Graeco-Roman Setting</I>, 172-73)</blockquote>
Paul’s ministry may have benefited from his trade. Tentmaking gives Paul an “in” with the Corinthian society. There are certainly financial benefits; tent makers are rent makers. He may also have used his business experience in operating his mission.
<p><a href=http://www.shef.ac.uk/biblicalstudies/people/alexander>Loveday Alexander</a> conjectures:
<blockquote>Paul’s own ability to deploy a complex network of co-workers may well owe something to his business experience. Travelling artisans had a recognized place in the life of the city, without the special privileges of citizens but accepted (and taxed) as resident aliens. The workshop of Aquila and Priscilla provides a long-term base for Paul’s operations, and solves the problem he had experienced in Philippi, Thessalonica and Athens. No one could just turn up in a Greek city (especially if it’s also a Roman colony) and start preaching, but the shopfront of a typical workshop, opening directly onto the marketplace, could provide an ideal location for engaging in conversation with passers-by. The shop also gave Paul financial independence, something that was to prove useful in later years in his somewhat stormy relationship with his Corinthian hosts (see I Corinthians 9:6). (Alexander, <i>Acts (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer)</I>, 138)</blockquote>
Paul’s day job also gives him a connection to the working class. <a href=http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/daniel.r.langton/>Daniel R. Langton</a> discloses:
<blockquote>Shalom Asch [1880-1957]’s Saul is described as ‘all motion and restlessness, as if in his veins ran quicksilver instead of blood,’ an ascetic firebrand who fasts frequently, has taken a vow of chastity, and provokes both admiration and concern for his uncompromising religious fervour...A student of the great Pharisaic authority, Gamaliel the Elder [Acts 5:34], Paul has trouble keeping up with the rabbinic curriculum, not because of any innate inability but because of his determination to follow the rabbinic ideal of learning a trade, which for Saul was tent-making. For Asch, this dedication to an occupation not only gave Saul financial security, reflecting the man’s independent streak, but also provided an opportunity to suggest that, in contrast to other Pharisaic students, Saul learned the ways of life not from legal theory but by contact with reality, with the poor and oppressed of first-century Palestinian society. In contrast to the yeshiva students, then, ‘The young man Saul knew the meaning of life.’ (Langton, “The Novels of Shalom Asch and <a href=http://americanjewisharchives.org/collections/ms0101/>Samuel Sandmel</a> [1911-1979]”, <i>The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination: A Study in Modern Jewish-Christian Relations</I>, 213)</blockquote>
Bruce Larson (1925-2008) confesses:
<blockquote>Paul sits eight or ten hours a day sewing tents, and by night he continues to be the world’s most exciting evangelist and preacher. I think the Holy Spirit wants that same rhythm for all of us. It’s a strange thing for a preacher to say, but I confess I’m a little suspicious of the religious professionals. It’s a somewhat lopsided focus. It seems to me much healthier to have a job out there in the real world. We need the rhythm of life—prayer and play, work and worship. (Larson, <i>Wind & Fire: Living Out the Book of Acts</I>, 128)</blockquote>
Paul’s experience in Corinth has coined the modern term “tentmaking” as a synonym for bivocational ministry (Acts 18:3). <a href=http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/>John R.W. Stott</a> (1921-2011) familiarizes:
<blockquote>‘Tentmaking ministries’ have rightly become popular in our day. The expression describes cross-cultural messengers of the gospel, who support themselves by their own professional or business expertise, while at the same time being involved in mission. <a href=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/about-the-wilson-center.cfm>Dr. J. Christy Wilson, Jr.</a> [1921-1999] has written about it in his book <i>Today’s Tentmakers</I>. The principle of self-support is the same, and the desire not to burden the churches, but the main motivation is different, namely that this may be the only way for Christians to enter those countries which do not grant visas to self-styled ‘missionaries’. (Stott, <i>The Message of Acts (Bible Speaks Today)</I>, 297)</blockquote>
William J. Larkin (1945-2014) apprises:
<blockquote>Today “tentmaker” missionaries enter “creative access” countries through secular employment when there is no way to enter as a full-time missionary. If they keep Paul’s motives in mind, they will be able to see their bivocationalism as beneficial to the spiritual health of churches they plant. Not only will they model a work ethic that is essential to sanctification, but they will avoid creating wrongful dependency, for they will be offering the gospel of grace “free of charge.” (Larkin, <i>Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series)</I>, 263-64)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ajithfernando.org/>Ajith Fernando</a> (b. 1948) notes:
<blockquote>There has been a surge of interest in tentmaking ministry over the past two decades. Situations today may require tentmakers for the same two reasons that Paul had: economic necessity and credibility. In certain situations, where there is no trust yet concerning the Christian workers, it may be best for them not to take support from the people to whom they minister (cf. I Corinthians 9:1-27). Sometimes a work cannot afford to support a worker. This is true of churches in poorer areas and in predominantly in non-Christian cultures...Tentmakers bring great enrichment to a ministerial team in that they have much more intimate contact with the world, which can enhance the team’s relevance and impact on the culture. <a href=http://www.globalopps.org/ruths_story.htm>Ruth Siemens</a> [1925-2005] writes, “The secular job is not an inconvenience, but the God-given context in which tentmakers live out the gospel in a winsome, wholesome, non-judgmental way, demonstrating personal integrity, doing quality work and developing caring relationships.”...It is on the mission field that tentmaking is becoming most valuable. In fact Ruth Siemens feels that the international job market, a key feature in today’s business world, “is an argument for tentmaking because it does not exist by accident, but by God’s design.” She describes it as God’s “‘repopulation program,’ transferring millions of hard-to-reach people into freer countries (Turks to <a href=https://www.deutschland.de/en>Germany</a>, Algerians to <a href=http://www.france.fr/>France</a>, Kurds to <a href=http://www.austria.info/>Austria</a>, etc.), and opening doors for Christians in hard-to-enter countries—so that many can hear the gospel!”...When challenging Christians to missions, which we should all be doing, we can also place before them the possibility of going as tentmakers to needy places. (Fernando, <i>Acts (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 498-99)</blockquote>
The efficacy of tentmaking is not universally accepted. <a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/kgangel/>Kenneth O. Gangel</a> (1935-2009) notifies:
<blockquote>The wisdom of the ages haunts us today. Many teachers still wonder whether one can make a living at such a task, and many college and seminary students struggle with the potential of “tentmaking” as a means of ministry...In today’s selfish society, such a practice runs against the grain, but we cannot escape its biblical precedent, not only in Paul who apparently practiced it part-time with the primary focus on preaching, but also in Priscilla and Aquila who never left their full-time work to carry out vocational ministry. A major principle surfaces here: <i>there is no secular duty for a Christian</I>; everything we take on, from changing diapers to governing a state, becomes a form of service to Christ (Colossians 3:23-25). (Gangel, <i>Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary)</I>, 303)</blockquote>
Definitions of modern tentmaking range in scope. <a href=http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=6740>Patrick Lai</a> surveys:
<blockquote>Ed Van Baak [1926-2007]...gives the most common definition of a tentmaker when he writes,”A tentmaker is a missionary in terms of commitment, but is fully self-supporting.” Don Hamilton [b. 1921], in his book <i>Tentmakers Speak</I>, defines a tentmaker as “a Christian who works in a cross-cultural situation, is recognized by members of the host culture as something other than a <I>religious professional</I>, and yet, in terms of his or her commitment, calling, motivation, and training, is a <i>missionary</I> in every way”...Richard Chia puts forward one of the more concise definitions befitting those working in restricted access nations. He sees a tentmaker as, “One who has a calling for full-time missionary service but is unable to enter a country of choice because of restrictions. One whose primary purpose is to do full-time missionary work but because of restrictions has to modify his mode of service.” <a href=http://www.globalopps.org/ruths_story.htm>Ruth Siemens</a> [1925-2005] adds clarity to our understanding in pointing out that “tentmaking cannot be equated with lay ministry because it is a missionary mode, a missions strategy. But some of Paul’s principles are equally applicable to lay ministry.” (Lai, <i>Tentmaking: The Life and Work of Business as Missions</I>, 11-12)</blockquote>
There are different types of tentmakers. <a href=http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=6740>Patrick Lai</a> delineates:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.greglivingstone.com/>Greg Livingstone</a> [b. 1940], the director emeritus of <a href=https://www.missionfrontiers.org>Frontiers</a>, suggests that there are three types of tentmakers: <i>job takers</I>, <i>job makers</I>, and <i>job fakers</I>. <i>Job takers</I> work for national and international companies...<i>Job makers</I> are workers who set up their own businesses, offer social services for nationals or open schools...<i>Job fakers</I> find some legal way to get a resident visa that keeps them free enough to be fully involved in proclamation and discipleship of new believers. <i>Job fakers</i>, like regular missionaries, are supported by their home churches. (Lai, <i>Tentmaking: The Life and Work of Business as Missions</I>, 12)</blockquote>
As in Paul’s day there are advantages to modern tentmaking. <a href=http://crcc.usc.edu/about/personnel/tetsunao-yamamori.html>Tetsunao Yamamori</a> (b. 1937) catalogs:
<blockquote>Likelihood of being a “tentmaker” (Acts 18:3) would...give the Envoy less time for evangelizing. But it would also produce important benefits. First, the Envoy’s mission activities would be untraceable, since there would be no sending body. Second, the Envoy’s passport profession would create natural working opportunities for witness. And third, there would be no need to leave the mission field at regular intervals to secure funds. Being a tentmaker is also consistent with one of the basic premises of the Special Envoys: they should not compete for resources (that is, mission support) that current traditional missionaries require. (Yamamori, <i>Penetrating Missions’ Final Frontier: A New Strategy for Unreached Peoples</I>, 77)</blockquote>
Though Paul labors in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3), he does not always work a secular job while ministering. <a href=http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/>John R.W. Stott</a> (1921-2011) reminds:
<blockquote>Paul insisted several times on the right of Christian teachers to be supported by their pupils [I Corinthians 9:3-7; Galatians 6:6]. But he himself voluntarily renounced this right, partly so as not to be a ‘burden’ to the churches and partly to undercut the accusation of ulterior motives by preaching the gospel free of charge [II Corinthians 12:13; I Thessalonians 2:9; II Thessalonians 3:8]. (Stott, <i>The Message of Acts (Bible Speaks Today)</I>, 297)</blockquote>
Paul is not afraid to roll up his sleeves. Though the object of much criticism, no one has ever accused Paul of being lazy. Paul is both a blue collar and white collar worker. This enables him to interact with regular Joes, like working stiffs in Corinth (Acts 18:1-18), and the philosophical elite, as in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). Both Paul’s manual labor and striking intellect work for the glory of God (Romans 8:28).
<p>What benefits does Paul gain from working a secular job in Corinth while ministering (Acts 18:2-3)? What are the reasons for contemporary tentmaking? Do you know any tentmakers? Should clergy learn a secular trade; should this be a component of a seminary’s curriculum? What are the advantages and disadvantages of bivocational ministry? How would you feel if your pastor also worked a secular job? When should a minister not charge for services?
<p>“There are moments when art attains almost to the dignity of manual labor.” - <a href=http://www.cmgww.com/historic/wilde/>Oscar Wilde</a> (1854-1900)Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-55986985936634638632014-07-01T15:00:00.000-07:002014-07-01T15:00:00.438-07:00Life is Short; Play Hard (Ecclesiastes 9:10)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sPb6H0fvthQ/U7CiOwqzaSI/AAAAAAAAI4Q/1zz94VDjDhU/s1600/Ecclesiastes9.10ShanequaGay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sPb6H0fvthQ/U7CiOwqzaSI/AAAAAAAAI4Q/1zz94VDjDhU/s320/Ecclesiastes9.10ShanequaGay.jpg" /></a></div><b>Complete: Whatever your hand finds to do, _____________________.” “Do it with your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10a)</b>
<p>Ecclesiastes is an anthology of wisdom penned by a teacher who refers to himself as Koheleth (Ecclesiastes 1:1). This name is typically translated as “the Preacher” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, RSV) or “the Teacher” (HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV). The book presents the teacher’s search for the meaning of life.
<p>Koheleth’s advises his readers is to exert effort in whatever they might attempt (Ecclesiastes 9:10).
<blockquote>Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going. (Ecclesiastes 9:10 NASB)</blockquote>
Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 forms a unit. <a href=https://www.facebook.com/naoto.kamano>Naoto Kamano</a> associates:
<blockquote>The fourth admonition (Ecclesiastes 9:10) shares some feature[s] with the previous three admonitions (Ecclesiastes 9:7-9). First, both Ecclesiastes 9:8 and Ecclesiastes 9:10 include כל in their admonitions: “at <i>any</I> time” and “<i>anything</I> your hand can grasp” (anything you are able to do) in Ecclesiastes 9:10. Second, both Ecclesiastes 9:7 and Ecclesiastes 9:10 require persistence. For Ecclesiastes 9:7, the life of enjoyment must be persistent. For Ecclesiastes 9:10 the persistent action to do whatever one is able to do is commanded. Third, Ecclesiastes 9:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:10 are symmetrical in their literary design: admonition (Ecclesiastes 9:9a, 9:10a) plus a motive clause beginning with כי (Ecclesiastes 9:9b, 9:10b) that includes a relative clause introduced by אשר (Ecclesiastes 9:9bβ, 9:10bβ). The motive clauses of Ecclesiastes 9:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:10, however, are contrasting. Enjoy life with one’s wife because it is <i>only available during one’s lifetime</I> (Ecclesiastes 9:9), but do whatever one can do because <i>nothing is available after death</I> (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Those motive clauses stress a deep schism between life and death. Therefore, Ecclesiastes 9:10 is an admonition for a life of <i>persistence</I> in doing whatever is possible and <i>available</I>. There is a sense of urgency in this admonition. (Kamano, <i>Cosmology and Character: Qoheleth’s Pedagogy from a Rhetorical-Critical Perspective</i>, 199-200)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html>Tremper Longman III</a> (b. 1952) situates:
<blockquote>This verse [Ecclesiastes 9:10] climaxes Qohelet’s appeal to enjoy life in the present, especially in view of death. He urges his listeners to act now, because death brings everything to a stop. (Longman, <i>The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 231)</blockquote>
Some have seen Ecclesiastes 9:10 as referencing conventional wisdom. <a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/iain-w-provan>Iain Provan</a> (b. 1957) explains:
<blockquote>The <i>quotation theory</I> holds that in the course of his argument Qohelet often quotes material whose opinions he does not himself agree. He reproduced what is termed “traditional wisdom” only in order to refute it. Verses like Ecclesiastes 2:16 and Ecclesiastes 9:10 were already regarded as quotations—what the “people” say—in earlier times (by the Targum and Abraham Ibn Ezra [1089-1167] respectively. The quotation approach simply builds on these early beginnings, identifying greater or lesser numbers of citations in the text, sometimes to the extent of viewing the overall genre of the book as a dialogue between a master and his students or between two schools of thought. In this way Qohelet’s own thoughts can be distinguished from other, earlier material in the book and a coherent picture of his own philosophy attained...The difficulty with this method of approaching the text, however, it to identify satisfactory criteria for identifying the proverbial wisdom with which Qohelet is thought to disagree. (Provan, <i>Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs (NIV Application Commentary)</i>, 31)</blockquote>
There are echoes of Ecclesiastes 9:10 in other sources. <a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1956&menu_id=72>Choon-Leong Seow</a> (b. 1952) researches:
<blockquote>The only appropriate response to the certainty of death is to enjoy life while one is able to do so. The call to enjoy life includes feasting (Ecclesiastes 9:7), fresh clothes (Ecclesiastes 9:8a), oil upon one’s head (Ecclesiastes 9:8b), and the love of one’s family (Ecclesiastes 9:9). These are precisely the kind of things enjoined in the <i>Gilgamesh Epic</I>, as evident in the speech by Siduri, the tavern keeper...Gilgamesh Epic iii.6-14...It is remarkable that this passage in the <i>Gilgamesh Epic</I> contains not only the same items that we find in Qohelet’s call for enjoyment, but the items appear in the same order: (1) feasting, (2) fresh clothing, (3) washing one’s head, and (4) family. Moreover, the point of the passage in <i>Gilgamesh</I>, as also in Ecclesiastes, is that life is something that mortals cannot hold on to forever...The gods have ordained death for all humanity, retaining life “in their own hands” (see <i>Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament</I>, p. 90) Everything is in the hands of the gods (Ecclesiastes 9:1)...Similar attitudes are reflected in the genre of Egyptian texts known as “Harpers’ Songs,” inscriptions that reflected on death and sometimes on the impossibility of immortality. In the face of the inevitable fate of death, the living are urged to enjoy themselves while they are able (see <i>Ancient Egyptian Literature</I> 1, pp. 196-97). Likewise, in a late Hellenistic tomb found in Jerusalem, one finds an inscription urging those who are able to enjoy themselves: “You who are living, Enjoy!” (see Pierre Benoit [1906-1987], “L’Inscription Greque du Tombeau de Jason,” <a href=http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il/iej.htm><I>Israel Exploration Journal</I></a> 17 [1967], pp. 112-113)...For <i>Qohelet</I>, too, people ought to enjoy life precisely because life is ephemeral. This, he says, is the <i>portion</I> of humanity in life (Ecclesiastes 9:9), a <i>portion</I> that the dead no longer have (Ecclesiastes 9:6). That is the difference between the living and the dead: the living still have a portion (the possibility of enjoyment), the dead do not. Therefore, one is urged to do vigorously all that one is able (Ecclesiastes 9:10), for in Sheol there will no longer be possibilities and opportunities that one may find on earth. However bad things may seem on earth, there is still the possibility of good. (Seow, <I>Ecclesiastes (Anchor Bible)</I>, 305-06)</blockquote>
Many have seen parallels to Ecclesiastes 9:10 in the thought of the philosopher, <a href=http://www.epicurus.net/>Epicurus</a> (341-270 BCE). Norman Wentworth DeWitt (1876-1958) compares:
<blockquote>There was one form of Necessity which no logical ingenuity of <a href=http://www.epicurus.net/>Epicurus</a> [341-270 BCE] could explain away, the inevitably of death. Metrodorus [331-277 BCE] expressed himself on this theme with a mournful and memorable felicity, Vatican Saying 31: “Against all other hazards it is possible for us to gain security for ourselves but so far as death is concerned all of us human beings inhabit a city without walls.” The immediate effect of this is to invest the present with a pressing urgency and to demand the control of experience with respect to the past, the present, and the future. This amounts to the control of our thoughts. A choice of attitude is involved: the past is to be regarded as unalterable, the future as undependable, and the present alone as within our power...The urgency that accrues to the present is admirably expressed by the Jewish Epicurean, Ecclesiastes 9:10...A similar admonition is placed in the mouth of Jupiter by Virgil [70-19 BCE] and with an odd sort of poetic irony, because both he and Hercules, to whom he speaks are immortals...“For every man the day of death stands fixed; for all men the span of life is brief and irremediable, but by good deeds to prolong fame, this is the task of virtue.” (DeWitt, <i>Epicurus & His Philosophy</I>, 182-83)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.truthincharity.com/>Matthew J. Ramage</a> (b. 1982) critiques:
<blockquote>St. Bonaventure [1221-1274] does...raise the possibility that the bleak statement “there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going” [Ecclesiastes 9:10] was written from the standpoint of an Epicurean (<i>in persona Epicuri</I>). However, in contrast with many exegetes of the Christian tradition, St. Bonaventure does not allege that troubling passages in Ecclesiastes were being stated as a kind of foil to indicate the position of what things look like from the perspective of an Epicurean who does not have faith in God. St. Bonaventure prefers to accept Ecclesiastes 9:10 from the point of view of Solomon, showing the conclusion a man would draw if the premises were true that one cannot know whether what he does is pleasing to God and whether virtue ultimately will have any reward. As for Ecclesiastes’s dark claim “the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost [Ecclesiastes 9:5],” St. Bonaventure notes that its literal sense is that the dead neither know the things of this world, nor remain in the memory of those in the world, nor have any affection for things of the world. Knowledge presupposes life, but St. Bonaventure observes that the dead have neither life, nor motion, nor sense...This interpretation of St. Bonaventure is consistent with the medieval understanding of the underworld, a view which retained elements of the traditional Sheol imagery. (Ramage, <i>Dark Passages of the Bible: Engaging Scripture with <a href=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/>Benedict XVI</a> [b. 1927] and St. Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]</I>, 240-41)</blockquote>
Instruction similar to Koheleth’s in Ecclesiastes 9:10 is also found elsewhere in the Bible. <a href=http://www.tabor.edu/academics/undergraduate-academics/faculty/douglas-miller>Douglas B. Miller</a> (b. 1955) canvasses:
<blockquote>This exhortation [Ecclesiastes 9:10] is echoed at various places elsewhere in the Bible. The Israelites in the wilderness are challenged according to their abilities and resources to give to the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 35:4-10). Early New Testament believers model zeal for their faith (Acts 17:11, 18:15; II Corinthians 9:2). Paul urges followers of Jesus to treat their employment as if working directly for the Lord (Colossians 3:22-25) and to do everything for God’s glory (I Corinthians 10:31). Perhaps ironically, Jesus tells Judas, who is about to betray him, “What you do, do quickly” (John 13:27 NASB). Other texts warn people not to attribute success to the might of one’s hand alone (Deuteronomy 8:17) for it is God who has the ability to make strong (I Chronicles 29:12; II Chronicles 20:6). (Miller, <i>Ecclesiastes (Believers Church Bible Commentary</I>, 166)</blockquote>
This is not the only one of the Ecclesiastes’ themes adopted by the New Testament. <a href=http://www.luthersem.edu/faculty/fac_home.aspx?contact_id=jlimburg>James Limburg</a> (b. 1935) connects:
<blockquote>Other themes are sounded in Ecclesiastes which are picked up in the New Testament...<i>Work</I> as a gift to be enjoyed (Ecclesiastes 2:24, 3:13, 5:18) and pursued with vigor (Ecclesiastes 9:10); in the New Testament, Jesus works as a carpenter’s son (Matthew 13:55) and Paul makes tents (Acts 18:1-3). (Limburg, <i>Encountering Ecclesiastes: A Book for Our Time</I>, 131)</blockquote>
Koheleth encourages his readers to work with their “might” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “strength” (HCSB) “hard” (CEV), “heartily” (MSG) or “well” (NLT) (Ecclesiastes 9:10).
<p><a href=http://hebrew.wisc.edu/?q=node/19>Michael V. Fox</a> (b. 1940) defines:
<blockquote>For the Masoretic Text’s <i>bekohăka</I>, “with your strength” (i.e., with your full strength), read <i>kekohăka</I>, “according yo your strength,” with Septuagint (and Syrohexapla) ἡ δύναμίς σου. (In 86 percent of its occurrences in Qohelet, ὡς corresponds to Hebrew <i>ke-</I> [or <i>keše-</I>]. The one other occurrence of ὡς = Masoretic Text <i>be</I> in Qohelet [Ecclesiastes 9:10a], probably reflects <i>kaph</I> in the vorlage.) Qohelet does not recommend all-out expenditure of effort (as would be implied by <i>bekohăka</I>), but only moderate exertions in accordance with one’s abilities. (Fox, <i>A Time to Tear Down & a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes</I>, 295)</blockquote>
<a href=http://ellul.org/>Jacques Ellul</a> (1912-1994) relates:
<blockquote>The command given to Gideon comes immediately to mind. In the midst of the catastrophes that were overtaking his people, Gideon becomes convinced that God has abandoned Israel. Then God speaks to him: “Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian” (Judges 6:14 NASB). We must interpret these words in two ways, one positive and the other restrictive. Positively, you have strength. You are to accomplish your task with this might. You may not realize how much strength you have: you may think you lack strength or ability. But Qohelet repeats “with your strength [Ecclesiastes 9:10].” Do not neglect this strength. And since Qohelet says that God gives you work to do, as he gave Gideon, you can count on strength being given you in what you undertake: enough strength to carry it out, strength that gives authority. But you already have might, just like Gideon, who felt so weak...But this command also has a restrictive side...You are to accomplish this work you are about to undertake with <i>your</I> might and nothing else. You must not undertake a task that is too much for you. For instance, you must not count on God to enable you to accomplish some heroic or athletic feat, to break a record or to create a work of art for which you lack the ability. No, you must use your strength, nothing else. You must know your ability and its limitations. Commit your might, but nothing beyond it...This command is personal. We must learn to grow old, then, and not attempt to overcome the aging process when our strength begins to decline, maintaining we can still do what we did twenty years ago. (Ellul, <i>The Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes</i>, 103-04)</blockquote>
The activity which is to be completed mightily is “whatever your hand finds to do”(Ecclesiastes 9:10 NASB). <a href=http://hebrew.wisc.edu/?q=node/19>Michael V. Fox</a> (b. 1940) bounds:
<blockquote>The hand “finding” or “reaching” signifies metaphorically the concept of <i>ability</I> or of <i>affording</I> something (most clearly in Leviticus 12:8, 25:28; and Isaiah 10:10). Nowhere does it mean “happen to do (something)” without also implying the ability to do it. Qohelet is advising us to expend effort only in accordance with our abilities, to do what we can manage to do. (Fox, <i>A Time to Tear Down & a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes</I>, 295)</blockquote>
<a href=http://religiousstudies.duke.edu/people?subpage=profile&Gurl=/aas/Religion&Uil=james.crenshaw>James L. Crenshaw</a> (b. 1934) concurs:
<blockquote>The idiom <i>kōl ’ašer timşā yādekā</I> means “everything one is able to do.” The Massoretic accentuation construes the infinitive <i>la‘aśôt</I> with <i>bekōhakā</I> rather than with the imperative <I>‘aśēh</I>. Following this lead, one should translate: “whatever you are able to do in your strength, do.” However, the ancient versions (Vulgate, Targum, and several Hebrew manuscripts) read the words differently, connecting <i>bekōhakā</I> with <I>‘aśēh</I>. The point follows naturally from Qohelet’s observation about death’s power. Enjoy a woman as long as that is possible [Ecclesiastes 9:9], and do zealously whatever you can [Ecclesiastes 9:10]. Knowledge that such intensity of feeling will quickly diminish, subsiding completely in Sheol, motivates intense living. (Crenshaw, <i>Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 163)</blockquote>
There has been discussion regarding precisely what actions Koheleth has in mind. <a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html>Tremper Longman III</a> (b. 1952) informs:
<blockquote>Disagreement exists over exactly what Qohelet is asking his reader to <i>do</I>. Some think this argues for complete license to do whatever one can and wants. Others say that it is a call to work hard. The reference probably cannot be restricted to either. A comparison with other uses of the idiom (Judges 9:33; I Samuel 10:7) indicates that the issue is opportunity. If you have a chance to do something, do it now, because who knows what the future will bring. (Longman, <i>The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 231)</blockquote>
<a href=http://hebrew.wisc.edu/?q=node/19>Michael V. Fox</a> (b. 1940) notes:
<blockquote>Abraham Ibn Ezra [1089-1167], apparently with attention to the preceding context, applies Ecclesiastes 9:10a only to pleasurable acts rather than to other sorts such as work. But since the next sentence (Ecclesiastes 9:10b) motivates this one reference to the entire range of human activities, the broadening of scope probably starts in Ecclesiastes 9:10a. (Fox, <i>A Time to Tear Down & a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes</I>, 295)</blockquote>
<a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/ellen-davis>Ellen F. Davis</a> (b. 1950) interprets:
<blockquote>Koheleth cannot be celebrating human achievement, which is never certain (see Ecclesiastes 9:11-12). Rather, these words should be heard as urging humility...and a realistic appreciation of three limitations that affect all human activity. First is the limitation of time. Work hard now; this is the time for it, while we are under the sun...Jesus...too, affirms that the world is the place for strenuous work: “We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). Second is the limitation of ability...Third is the limitation of chance. When beginning a new endeavor, it is right to pray that God may bring it to a successful conclusion, but there is never any guarantee that I will live to see it. Indeed, if I steadily put my hands, mind, and heart to work, I can be certain that at some unforseen “time of calamity” (Ecclesiastes 9:12), I will leave good and important work unfinished. The great teacher of early Judaism, Rabbi Akiba [40-137], uttered a memorable saying that echoes this passage: “Everything is given in pledge, and a net is spread over all” (<i>Pirke Avot</I> 3:25). Some day we will each have to trust God with the unfinished work we hold most dear. (Davis, <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 214-15)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.tabor.edu/academics/undergraduate-academics/faculty/douglas-miller>Douglas B. Miller</a> (b. 1955) updates:
<blockquote>With regard to <i>toil</I>, the writer begins with a simple statement that exhorts vigor and exudes enthusiasm: <i>Do [your work] with all your might</I> (Ecclesiastes 9:10)...This may be similar to the contemporary saying, “If anything is worth doing, it is worth doing well.” As in Ecclesiastes 9:7b, Qohelet is not urging a “Do whatever feels good” approach to life. Rather, he draws attention to the work to which his readers are committed and advises that they should give it good effort while they can. His rationale is that death is coming, a theme that permeates Ecclesiastes 9:1-10...Just as in Ecclesiastes 7:1-4, the Teacher emphasizes that in order to understand life and develop a healthy lifestyle, one must confront and ponder death. Qohelet is neither superficial about the joys of life (Pleasure! Enthusiasm!) nor despondent about life’s hardships (Toil.. Death...) He shows his reader a way through them both, which means being focused on living in the present. (Miller, <i>Ecclesiastes (Believers Church Bible Commentary</I>, 165)</blockquote>
There are dangers connected to misreading Koheleth’s exhortation (Ecclesiastes 9:10). <a href=http://www.twocities.org/>David G. Moore</a> (b. 1958) warns:
<blockquote>The wise person gives his best effort with the available circumstances and opportunities. The temptation for all of us is to take this wise approach to life and push it to its unbiblical conclusion. For instance, it is irrational to be a workaholic because God ultimately gives us our work. Only he can bring good out of it. We work, but he redeems. This truth need not promote passivity or sloppy work habits, but it does keep us from the folly of thinking that hard work alone will make for a rewarding life...It is also irrational to be a workaholic because relationships will suffer. To have the kind of marriage depicted in Ecclesiastes 9:9 takes a lot of unhurried time. This is an impossibility if we expend all our effort outside the home. The unchecked workaholism of so many people is also foolish because we do not know the day of our death. (Moore and <a href=http://www.danielakin.com/>Daniel L. Akin</a> [b. 1957], <i>Ecclesiastes, Songs of Songs (Holman Old Testament Commentary)</i>, 107)</blockquote>
There are activities that should obviously not be done vigorously. <a href=http://www.ligonier.org/about/rc-sproul/>R.C. Sproul</a> (b. 1939) restrains:
<blockquote>This particular passage from Ecclesiastes is not a universal absolute that says, “Anything you do, do with all your might [Ecclesiastes 9:10].” There are lots of things that we do with our hands that are ungodly, and we ought not to be doing them with any commitment. What the book is saying here is that in the labor to which we are called, in the devotion that we give to God, in those things that are just and proper and good to which we apply ourselves, we are to do these things with determination, not in a casual manner. It’s somewhat similar to Jesus saying that he would rather people be cold or hot, not lukewarm. Those who are lukewarm he said he will spew out of his mouth [Revelation 3:16]. He seems to have more respect for a zealous hostility than for indifference, for example. (Sproul, <i>Now, That’s a Good Question!</I>, 578)</blockquote>
<a href=http://ellul.org/>Jacques Ellul</a> (1912-1994) advises:
<blockquote>You must not separate a verse from what comes before and after it. Before this verse we find: “<i>God takes pleasure</i> in what you do”(Ecclesiastes 9:7, Jacques Ellul), and the joy mentioned in this context is to be found <i>in the midst of your work</I>, according to Ecclesiastes 9:9. These comments constitute two limitations, so that “everything” (in Ecclesiastes 9:10) cannot mean “anything at all.” On the one hand, what we choose must be work (and not crime or foolishness); on the other hand, it must constitute <i>pleasure for God</I>. We find a third limitation in the second half of Ecclesiastes 9:10: Do everything during your life, “for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in the dwelling place of the dead where you are going” (Ecclesiastes 9:10b, Jacques Ellul). “Everything” thus means some work, thought, knowledge, etc. Within the triangle of these three limitations, all activities are welcome, and you need not weigh other factors. You should do whatever you find within your reach. (Ellul, <i>The Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes</i>, 103)</blockquote>
<a href=http://thegreatgiver.org/about-the-author/>Matt Pastor</a> suggests:
<blockquote>We should...remember that our entire lives should be lived as worship to God...Ecclesiastes 9:10 says, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might.” Let us run after God today with our might. (Pastor, <i>The Great Giver: A Philosophy of Worship</I>, 66)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.tabor.edu/academics/undergraduate-academics/faculty/douglas-miller>Douglas B. Miller</a> (b. 1955) applies:
<blockquote>In a letter to his goddaughter, <a href=https://www.cslewis.com>C.S. Lewis</a> [1898-1963] (27) gave this advice: “Remember that there are only three kinds of things anyone ever need do. (1) Things we <i>ought</I> to do. (2) Things we’ve <i>got</I> to do. (3) Things we <i>like</I> doing. I say this because some people seem to spend so much of their time doing things for none of the three reasons, things like reading books they don’t like because other people read them.”...A simple life in which work is done to achieve what is necessary for living, and not out of competition or for display can free persons to do better both what they ought and what they like. The Teacher’s list in Ecclesiastes 9:7-9 is a reminder that doing what we like can be a good thing. (Miller, <i>Ecclesiastes (Believers Church Bible Commentary</I>, 167)</blockquote>
Ecclesiastes 9:10 has often been associated with work. <a href=http://www.chester.ac.uk/node/600>Eric S. Christianson</a> chronicles:
<blockquote>In the first part of Qoheleth’s call to joy in Ecclesiastes 9:7-10, he reflects on the <i>product</I> of one’s labour (food, wine and clothing) and only then moves on to human labour proper. Not surprisingly, readers have identified with the zeal for work and, like Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), related it to a broader concern for living: ‘Here on earth we are as soldiers, fighting in a foreign land, that understand not the plan of the campaign, and have no need to understand it; seeing well what is at our hand to be done. Let us do it like soldiers, with submission, with courage, with a heroic joy. <i>Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might</I>’ (in W. Robertson Nicoll [1851-1923] and Jane T. Stoddart [1863-1944] 1910:548). In retrospect (such as Qoheleth’s own narratival aspect), the passage can prompt regret, as Thomas Edward Brown (1830-1897) relates in a moving letter to a friend on the death of Brown’s son: “The pain of separation from those we love is so intense that I will <i>not love</i>...He and I might have been intertwined a great deal more, and that we were not appears to me now a great loss. In this, as in everything else, I accept the words of the Ecclesiast – “What thine hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for” – you know the rest’ (in Nicoll and Stoddart 1910:548). <a href=http://www.theruskinsociety.com/>John Ruskin</a> [1819-1900], in a lecture entitled ‘The Mystery of Life and its Arts’ (1868), uses Ecclesiastes 9:10 to reflect on the nature of ‘true work’ in the artistic guilds, as distinct from the futility of most human endeavour. (Christianson, <i>Ecclesiastes Through the Centuries</i>, 213)</blockquote>
Work is presented in a decidedly positive vein and this emphasis is unique. <a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/faculty-member?id=3>William P. Brown</a> (b. 1958) observes:
<blockquote>Noteworthy is the fact that one prominent element featured in Qoheleth’s commendation is remarkably absent in the Akkadian tale, namely Qoheleth’s commendation of work (Ecclesiastes 9:9b-10). For the biblical sage, work is just as integral to joy as it is a part of humanity’s limiting lot (see also Ecclesiastes 2:24a, 3:13a, 22, 5:18, 8:15b). Here, finally, Qoheleth provides a decisive clue as to why he includes work within joy’s embrace. (Brown, <I>Ecclesiastes (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching</I>, 95)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1940&menu_id=72>Eunny P. Lee</a> (b. 1968) attends:
<blockquote>For Qohelet, enjoyment is not to be equated with the pursuit of gain or profit. The enjoyment of life’s simple gifts—sustaining meals and sleep that rejuvenates in the night—displaces the vain prospect for gain. Hence, as <a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/faculty-member?id=3>William P. Brown</a> [b. 1958] notes, joy is “both trivialized and elevated.” Qohelet has, in effect, “integrated the solemn Sabbath command into the mundane rhythms of daily living, and in so doing consecrated them.” Qohelet refuses to let toil take over and have the decisive word. Indeed, the word itself tapers off toward the end of his discourse, and human work is described in increasingly positive terms (see especially Ecclesiastes 9:10, 11:6). (Lee, <i>The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet’s Theological Rhetoric</I>, 61)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/faculty-member?id=3>William P. Brown</a> (b. 1958) expounds:
<blockquote>Despite the burdensome nature of toil, Qoheleth urges his readers to work for all their worth [Ecclesiastes 9:10]...Work is not an option; it is an ethical duty. Sisyphus, that tragic character of Greek mythology who was condemned by the gods to roll a boulder up a hill only to see it roll back down into the valley whence it came, is the classical example of meaningless toil. Yet <a href=http://www.camus-society.com/>Albert Camus</a> [1913-1960] finds in Sisyphus a certain inviolable dignity: “One sees merely the whole effort of a body straining to raise the huge stone, to roll it and push it up a slope a hundred times over; one sees the face screwed up, the cheek tight against the stone, the shoulder gracing the clay-covered mass, the foot wedging it, the fresh start with arms outstretched, the wholly human security of two earth-clotted hands.”...As Qoheleth has consistently claimed, the value of work is not derived from the gain that one’s labors may yield but, rather, is found in the very doing of work, in the challenge of formidable toil. Qoheleth finds inalienable dignity in the strain of toil during one’s ephemeral life. Moreover, the sage acknowledges a degree of freedom in the exercise of work (“<i>whatever</I> your hand finds to do”). The point is not the kind of work to which one devotes himself or herself but the integrity that is exercised in the very act of toiling. To state the obvious, work is an opportunity that does not avail itself in death. Before the great equalizer, work is revealed to be a privileged duty, the self-satisfying expenditure of power, in short, a blessing. In order for one’s labors to be meaningful, sufficient rest is a prerequisite, hence, Qoheleth’s stress on the essential rhythm of rest and work, of sustenance and toil. Devoid of work and wisdom, death is the vacuum to which all life is headed. Like joy, work concretely embodies the vitality of life. Slowly and subtly, Qoheleth has turned the toil of work into a celebration of the power of life. Gradually, Qoheleth has stripped the weariness from the toil and transformed burdensome labor into life-affirming vocation, developed and sustained in relationship to others (Ecclesiastes 4:9). Like Sisyphus, Qoheleth finds a measure of dignity in the very act of toiling. But unlike Sisyphus, Qoheleth’s joyful toiler is no lone ranger. Community is essential to meaningful labor (see Ecclesiastes 4:7-12). (Brown, <I>Ecclesiastes (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching</I>, 95)</blockquote>
Humans should do something with the life God has given them. <a href=https://mylesmunroeinternational.com>Myles Munroe</a> (b. 1954) implores:
<blockquote>We have a responsibility before God to be faithful in the tasks He places before us, because he does not want us to take our gifts, talents, and abilities to the grave unused...Ecclesiastes gives us good counsel here: “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). <b>God did not create us to do nothing.</b> He has endowed us with intelligence, creativity, spiritual gifts, and natural abilities, and He expects us to use them, to pour them out in service to others for the glory of His name. (Munroe, <i>The Glory of Living: Keys to Releasing Your Personal Glory</i>, 61)</blockquote>
Wesley J. Fuerst (1930-2007) rewords:
<blockquote>What God has given you to do, <i>do it with all your might</I>, for this is the sense and ultimate vindication of life, insofar as you can ever know it. You cannot live in your dreams or aspirations, or in the world of what you think you ought to be; you cannot postpone finding sense in life until your death; and you cannot imagine some celestial levelling of accounts after death. While it is good not to press too hard to establish yourself in goodness or evil (cp. Ecclesiastes 7:16), in the sense of making that the obsessive pursuit of your life, do what is given you to do as energetically and forcefully as possible. (Fuerst, <i>The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Lamentations: The Five Scrolls (Cambridge Bible Commentary)</I>, 141)</blockquote>
We should do something and this exertion should involve “elbow grease”. <a href=http://www.insight.org/about/chuck-swindoll.html>Charles R. Swindoll</a> (b. 1934) instructs:
<blockquote><i>Throw Yourself Fully into... Whatever (Ecclesiastes 9:10)</i>...Solomon instructed us to do whatever we do in this life with vim and vigor. Don’t wait until you retire to start enjoying life. How do you know you’ll make it that long? If you were to die today, would your family be left with memories or just material possessions?...We need to be active in pursuing the good gifts God has given us. To neglect His gifts or to pick at them delicately may show a lack of appreciation to the Giver. As we partake of God’s blessings, we must also remember to do all things to the glory of God and in awe of Him (I Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17, 23). Wise living balances an enjoyment of the gifts with a love for the Giver, never forgetting that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36). (Swindoll, <i>Living on the Ragged Edge Workbook: Finding Joy in a World Gone Mad</I>)</blockquote>
When undertaking any task, we must do our due diligence and do it with gusto. If not for ourselves, for our God.
<p>How would you restate Ecclesiastes 9:10? How does Jesus’ life embody this exhortation? Is there intrinsic value in working hard? When have you seen someone work passionately? Does Ecclesiastes 9:10 characterize your work ethic? How can a reader gage whether or not she is exhibiting enough intensity; what is the litmus test? What is God calling you to do with your might?
<p>The catalyst for humanity’s earnestness is the inevitability of death (Ecclesiastes 9:10). <a href=http://hebrew.wisc.edu/?q=node/19>Michael V. Fox</a> (b. 1940) notifies:
<blockquote><i>Ma‘ăśeh</I> here means “action” rather than “events.” The reason for being active in life (Ecclesiastes 9:10a) is the absence of any <i>activity</I> afterwards (Ecclesiastes 9:10b). (Fox, <i>A Time to Tear Down & a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes</I>, 295)</blockquote>
This rationale is typical of Koheleth. <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/about-wheaton/leadership/president-ryken>Philip Graham Ryken</a> (b. 1966) comments:
<blockquote>As usual...the Preacher ends by reminding us that our days are numbered. Here is his sober motivation for working with all our might: “for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). (Ryken, <i>Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters (Preaching the Word)</I>, 219)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/naoto.kamano>Naoto Kamano</a> footnotes:
<blockquote>For “going” (הלך) as a euphemism of death, see Ecclesiastes 3:20, 5:14, 15, 6:4, 6, 9:10, 12:5. For “coming” (בא) as a euphemism of birth, see Ecclesiastes 2:12, 5:14, 15, 6:4, 11:8. (Kamano, <i>Cosmology and Character: Qoheleth’s Pedagogy from a Rhetorical-Critical Perspective</i>, 51)</blockquote>
Koheleth alludes to death by referencing Sheol (Ecclesiastes 9:10). As there is no precise equivalent to Sheol in contemporary thought the word is often transliterated rather than translated (ASV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, RSV). When it is translated it is presented as “the grave” (KJV, NJV, NLT), “company of the dead” (MSG), “realm of the dead” (NIV) or “world of the dead” (CEV).
<p><a href=http://www.liberty.edu/academics/religion/?PID=12254>Richard Alan Fuhr, Jr.</a> (b. 1971) acclimates:
<blockquote>The Hebrew שאול (<i>Sheol</I>) is found 65 times in the Old Testament, depicting the dwelling place of the dead (whether this refers to the simple grave or the underworld is a matter of considerable debate, but semantic flexibility is apparent from the various contexts in which the word is found), described as a place of gloom and deep darkness, and metaphorically speaking, an enemy to be avoided. In <i>Sheol</i>, all hope in future blessing ceases and there is no longer opportunity to express praise in the Lord. References to the surviving consciousness of the individual in <i>Sheol</I> are vague at best, and the notion of the enduring reality of the “soul” is difficult to maintain from the Old Testament alone. (Fuhr, <i>An Analysis of the Inter-Dependency of the Prominent Motifs Within the Book of Qohelet</I>, 118)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/towner_dr_and_mrs_w_sibley_sib_jane/>W. Sibley Towner</a> (b. 1933) adds:
<blockquote>Sheol, the abode of the dead, is not the Hellenistic hades or the hell of later Judaism and Christianity. It is not the antithesis of heaven (although the reluctance of the NIV to use the term suggests that it wishes to reserve the concept of an underworld for later juxtaposition with heaven)...It is not simply “the grave.” Instead it is a place in which all dead persons have a shadowy existence, a place to which the Lord can send people and from which God can also bring them back (I Samuel 2:6), a place from which the Lord could hear the cries of Jonah (Jonah 2:2). Sheol is mentioned some sixty-five times in the Hebrew Bible, and some of the writers allow the “shades” to continue to possess some kind of memory and existence in Sheol (e.g., Numbers 16:30-33; I Samuel 28:8-14; Psalm 143:3; Isaiah 14:14-17). One Psalmist even imagined that God could be present in it...(Psalm 139:8)...But in his only use of the term, Qohelet maintains the traditional view of ancient Israel: Sheol is a place from which no one exits, from which no prayers arise, beyond which there is no further hope (see Job 14:11-14; Psalm 6:5). It is a place of nonbeing, where all consciousness and all passions have ceased (see Ecclesiastes 9:5-6)...The Teacher maintains this view in the face of some of his contemporaries who were apparently already beginning to suggest that the dead might be resurrected to either of two places, one up and one down (see Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 2:2). Perhaps Qohelet’s view is a manifestation of a conservative, upper-class outlook, analogous to that of the patrician Sadducees of later times who denied the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). Perhaps Qohelet’s critic of a later generation, the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, more accurately represented the hope of the rank and file of Jews even of Qohelet’s day when he wrote, “Righteousness is immortal” (Wisdom of Solomon 1:15 NRSV). (Towner, <i> Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach (New Interpreter’s Bible)</I>, 341)</blockquote>
<a href=http://benwitherington.com/>Ben Witherington III</a> (b. 1951) infers:
<blockquote>Ecclesiastes 9:10 says emphatically that in Sheol there is no knowledge, no wisdom, no planning, indeed no consciousness, and hardly what one would normally call <i>being</I> in any real sense. It seems to be a state of oblivion and not bliss. (Witherington, <i>Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom</i>, 69)</blockquote>
Wesley J. Fuerst (1930-2007) depicts:
<blockquote>Sheol was conceived in ancient Israel as a dark and dismal place inhabited by the dead ‘souls’ of men, in a manner very similar to other ancient ideas about the abode of the dead. In Sheol existence was quiet and separated from God and from human activity or memory (‘Will thy wonders be known in the dark, thy victories in the land of oblivion?’, Psalm 88:12). No life was imagined for Sheol, and as the place where all the dead go it certainly provided no means for Koheleth and his contemporaries of solving the issues of death, mystery, and unfairness through reliance upon some grand recompense at the end of time. In the religion of the Old Testament, Sheol signified neither a last judgement, nor heaven or hell; it was not a place where people either suffered for wrong-doing or were rewarded for good...All of this was of course taken for granted by Koheleth. (Fuerst, <i>The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Lamentations: The Five Scrolls (Cambridge Bible Commentary)</I>, 141-42)</blockquote>
Despite its colorless existence, residing in Sheol does not reflect poorly on its residents; in context it represents a universal destiny.
<p><a href=http://www.universitystory.gla.ac.uk/biography/?id=WH2493&type=P>Robert Davidson</a> (1927-2012) identifies:
<blockquote>Sheol...is not hell in the sense of a place to which some people go—the wicked—to be punished. Sheol means for everyone the end of all that makes life meaningful and joyful. It was widely believed that in Sheol no contact with God was possible. The author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus gives voice to a view which we find elsewhere in the Old Testament: “Who in the netherworld can glorify the Most High?...No more can the dead give praise than those who have never lived: they glorify God who are alive and well.” (Ecclesiasticus 17:17-28; cf. Isaiah 38:18-19). (Davidson, <i>Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon (Daily Study Bible)</I>, 63)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/about-wheaton/leadership/president-ryken>Philip Graham Ryken</a> (b. 1966) recognizes:
<blockquote>The word “Sheol” is not a synonym for Hell but simply refers to the place of the dead, whether good or evil. Martin Luther [1483-1546] said it well: Sheol is “the hidden resting-place...outside of the present life, where the soul departs to its place.” (Ryken, <i>Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters (Preaching the Word)</I>, 219)</blockquote>
Ecclesiastes 9:10 marks the book’s sole reference to Sheol. <a href=http://religiousstudies.duke.edu/people?subpage=profile&Gurl=/aas/Religion&Uil=james.crenshaw>James L. Crenshaw</a> (b. 1934) portrays:
<blockquote>Qohelet depicts Sheol as lacking any promising feature, whether achievement, mental calculation, knowledge, or wisdom [Ecclesiastes 9:10]. The participle <i>hōlēk</I> underlines the fact that human beings are already going that direction. The personal pronoun <i>’attāh</I> (you) personalizes the point. Qohelet saw no basis for optimism about the next life, either in Hebraic expression, the resurrection of the body, or in its Greek expression, the immortality of the soul. For Qohelet, Sheol was a place of nonbeing. (Crenshaw, <i>Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 163)</blockquote>
In Ecclesiastes, the modern expression “you can’t take it with you” would refer to more than material possessions. <a href=http://faculty.albright.edu/religiousstudies/j-koosed.html>Jennifer L. Koosed</a> (b. 1971) depicts:
<blockquote>There is no living on (French: <i>sur-vivre</I>, “over-living”), either in the sense of survival, or resurrection. There is only, minimally, Sheol (Ecclesiastes 9:10), a shadowy underworld or place of shades, where all go together...Death, then, for Qohelet, entails these two themes: (1) the extinguishing of memory and (2) the leveling of differences. (Koosed, <i>(Per)mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book</i>, 90)</blockquote>
There is one facet especially conspicuous by its absence in Sheol (Ecclesiastes 9:10). <a href=http://www.taylor-edu.ca/seminary/faculty-biographies/403-dr-jerry-shepherd>Jerry E. Shepherd</a> (b. 1953) notices:
<blockquote>It is significant that among the four things he lists in Ecclesiastes 9:10 as missing from the place to which all are going, he saves “wisdom” for last. All along he has been on a quest, by his wisdom, to find wisdom (Ecclesiastes 7:23). But in the end, no one is wise. He has declared that “wisdom preserves the life of its possessor” (Ecclesiastes 7:12). But now, in this sad verse, we find out that, at most, all it really ever does is delay the inevitable. (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html>Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406>David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>Proverbs ~ Isaiah (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 337-38)</blockquote>
Wesley J. Fuerst (1930-2007) imagines:
<blockquote>As an old wise man, he found most distasteful about the notion of going to Sheol, the fact that there would be no chance in that place for wisdom, knowledge, reflection or action [Ecclesiastes 9:10]. His life’s work as a wise man would be ended, and he could look forward to being still, and perhaps bored. (Fuerst, <i>The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Lamentations: The Five Scrolls (Cambridge Bible Commentary)</I>, 142)</blockquote>
Many have deduced that Koheleth rejects the concept of an afterlife entirely (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Wayne H. Peterson (1927-2003) supposes:
<blockquote>The reference to Sheol in Ecclesiastes 9:10 shows that Koholeth had no understanding of a future life in God’s presence, such as is taught in a few places in the Old Testament (Psalm 49:15, 73:23-25; Daniel 12:2-3) and throughout the New Testament (I Thessalonians 4:13-18). In common with the majority of the people in his time he still thought of life after death as a peaceful but pleasureless existence in the underworld. Because this earthly life alone offered the possibility of pleasure, he taught the duty of full enjoyment of these pleasures while life on earth lasted. (Peterson, <i>Proverbs - Isaiah (Broadman Bible Commentary)</I>, 123)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html>Tremper Longman III</a> (b. 1952) examines:
<blockquote>The second half of this verse [Ecclesiastes 9:10] is one of the clearest indications that Qohelet had absolutely no concept of life after death. Those who wish to argue otherwise are reduced to special pleading of the most obvious kind, like Ernst Henstenberg [1802-1869], who remarks, “there are forms of knowledge and work which belong only to the present life, and he who does not employ them has buried his talent in the earth, and thus committed a heavy, sin,— a sin, the consequences of which will stretch into eternity.” John 9:4 is not parallel here because the night referred to there is not death in general but Christ’s death, and the work is specifically his redemptive work...The list of things absent after death, <i>actions</I>, <i>thought</I>, <i>knowledge</I>, and <i>wisdom</I>, suggest both physical and mental processes coming to a complete end. For Qohelet death is the absolute end. We thus see that “under the sun” entails the entirety of human possibility; it is no wonder that ultimate meaning alluded him. (Longman, <i>The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament)</I>, 231)</blockquote>
<a href=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Alter/Alter.html>Robert Alter</a> (b. 1935) considers:
<blockquote>It is possible that Qohelet’s uncompromising insistence on death as a realm of utter extinction is a polemic response to the new doctrine of an afterlife that was beginning to emerge toward the end of the biblical period. (Alter, <i>The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary</I>, 378-79)</blockquote>
At the very least, Ecclesiastes 9:10 provides hope that, even without the enticement of the afterlife, hard work is worth the effort.
<p>The exclusion of an afterlife would fly in the face of much contemporary religious thought. <a href=http://huc.edu/directory/leonard-s-kravitz>Leonard S. Kravitz</a> (b. 1928) and <a href=http://joi.org/about/staff.shtml>Kerry M. Olitzky</a> (1954) acknowledge:
<blockquote>Such a thought...seems to contravene traditional religious views. Kohelet does not even speak of immortality through children, as the reader would have expected in the context of the Bible. Hence, the <i>Targum</I> understands the verse to refer to the righteous who achieve their good works before they die so that they may receive their reward for them after death. Rashi [1040-1105], taking <i>cheshbon</I> as “accounting,” tells the reader that the righteous need not be concerned about “accounting” in the world-to-come, but the wicked should be very concerned about it. (Kravitz and Olitzky, <i>Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs</i>, 95)</blockquote>
Some have attempted to defend the possibility of an afterlife in Ecclesiastes. <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/T/Daniel-Treier>Daniel J. Treier</a> (b. 1972) argues:
<blockquote>The statements about Sheol need not preclude some kind of afterlife, given potential hints elsewhere in the book. In this passage, though, the Sage gives full voice to his tragic side; most Old Testament references to Sheol concern those under divine judgment, whereas this makes it the destiny of everyone (<a href=http://www.redeemer.ca/faculty/craig-bartholomew.aspx>Craig G. Bartholomew</a> [b. 1961] 2009:305). The Sage’s statements portray the apparent <I>certainties</I> from our current, empirical perspective; this verse does not weigh in on other possibilities. Similarities are frequently noted between Ecclesiastes and the <i>Gilgamesh Epic</I> yet, although these words sound alike, the epic’s advice could amount to little more than “let us eat and drink, / for tomorrow we die” (I Corinthians 15:32)—according to which eating and drinking becomes everything, blown out of proportion. However, just because the Sage does not say everything in every verse, we should not assume that pagan, hedonistic resignation captures his perspective. Ecclesiastes commends these pleasures in moderation that reflects the influence of divine judgment, even without clearly foreseeing the ultimate basis on which that judgment makes sense. Since the Sage can reach such a nuanced perspective on human joys without revelation about resurrection in Christ, Ecclesiastes can help to engage pluralistic civil arenas. Some teaching on cardinal virtues and capital vices commends itself with the book’s logic regarding how to handle human limitations and earthly fragility under God. Still, in the end this message drives us toward humility and the necessity of theological virtue. (Treier, <i>Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 209)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.ttb.org/>J. Vernon McGee</a> (1904-1988) justifies:
<blockquote>It is certainly true that the body in the grave can no longer hold a hammer in its hand. The brain is no longer able to study or perform any mental chores. Solomon is speaking only of the body. “Whatsoever thy <i>hand</I> findeth to do, do it with thy might [Ecclesiastes 9:10].” He is talking about the hand, not the soul. It is the hand that will be put into the grave. If you are a child of God, you will go into the presence of the Lord. If you are not a child of God, you will go to the place of the dead until you are raised to be judged at the Great White Throne [Revelation 20:11-15]. This life does not end it all. This book does not teach soul sleep. (McGee, <i>Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon (Thru the Bible)</I>, 70)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/about-wheaton/leadership/president-ryken>Philip Graham Ryken</a> (b. 1966) clarifies:
<blockquote>When the Preacher says that there is no work or wisdom there [Ecclesiastes 9:10], he may sound as if he denies the afterlife. But the Preacher is not trying to answer our questions about what does or does not happen to us after we die; to answer those questions we need to turn to other places in Scripture. He simply is saying that we are all going to die and that when we do, it will be the end of our work on earth, the end of everything we know about what is happening in the world, and the end of all our earthly pleasures. (Ryken, <i>Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters (Preaching the Word)</I>, 219-20)</blockquote>
It is worth noting that an afterlife is a feature of some Old Testament texts. <a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/iain-w-provan>Iain Provan</a> (b. 1957) surveys:
<blockquote>The one “place” to which all the living go to is Sheol, the world of the dead (e.g., Job 30:23, “the place appointed for all the living”)...The Old Testament often speaks of death as if it were a final ending of human existence—a place of separation from God (e.g., Psalm 6:5, 88:10-12) that the righteous as well as the wicked will experience as darkness and chaos, and from which even they will not return (e.g., Job 10:20-22). Other texts, however, tells us that the <i>wicked</I> depart to Sheol (e.g. Psalm 9:17, 31:17), implying that the fate of righteous is ultimately (if not immediately) different—a point explicit in Psalm 49:13-15, where the righteous are ransomed from Sheol’s power (cf. also Psalm 16:10-11). Proverbs 15:24 tells us that “the path of life leads upward for the wise to keep him from going down to the grave [Sheol]” (cf. Proverbs 12:28, 14:32); Psalm 139:7-12 claims that God is not, after all, absent from Sheol, but present with the worshiper even in the midst of the darkness; and Job 14:13 pictures Sheol as a place in which God might hide Job until his wrath has passed, the passage envisioning a later time when God will remember him and the dead will be roused out of their sleep (Job 14:12, 14-17; cf. the famous Job 19:25-26). In passages like Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3, moreover, there are clear references to resurrection from the dead. (Provan, <i>Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs (NIV Application Commentary)</i>, 93)</blockquote>
In Ecclesiastes, Sheol represents death, the great equalizer (Ecclesiastes 9:10). In this sense, “the grave” is an appropriate translation (KJV, NJV, NLT).
<p><a href=http://www.universitystory.gla.ac.uk/biography/?id=WH2493&type=P>Robert Davidson</a> (1927-2012) traces:
<blockquote>Death...has been hovering in the wings and sometimes stepping forward to occupy centre stage ever since Ecclesiastes 2:14. Death is no respecter of persons, Koheleth reminds us. We may not like it, we may even try to avoid thinking about it. It is what he calls “an evil” (Ecclesiastes 9:3), but it comes to good folk and to bad folk alike; to those who are punctilious in their religious observances and to those who are not; to those who go to church and to those who never darken the door of a church. We will go down to “the dead”; we have all been issued a one way ticket to <i>Sheol</I> (Ecclesiastes 9:10). (Davidson, <i>Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon (Daily Study Bible)</I>, 62-63)</blockquote>
The shadow of death looms large and an awareness of death colors one’s perception of life. <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/T/Daniel-Treier>Daniel J. Treier</a> (b. 1972) reveals:
<blockquote>Ecclesiastes 9:10 forbids reading Ecclesiastes 9:1 deterministically or fatalistically: freedom entails taking advantage of opportunities. <i>Memento mori</I> (“remember your death”) anticipates what it means to remember your Creator; we are all headed to Sheol, the realm of the dead, far too soon from our current perspective. So <i>carpe diem</I>: we ought to seize the day, working and thinking and knowing while we can. Gregory the Great [540-604]’s comment is apposite: “So death itself will be defeated when it comes, if we always fear it before it comes.” (Treier, <i>Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 208-09)</blockquote>
The reality of death’s inevitability is often resisted. Chris Morrant and <a href=http://www.glendon.org/about-glendon/glendon-staff/>Joyce Catlett</a> (b. 1932) analyze:
<blockquote>Summing up individual and societal defenses against the terror of death, <a href=http://www.ernestbecker.org/>Ernest Becker</a> [1924-1974] (1973/1997) wrote: “Everything that man does in his symbolic world is an attempt to deny and overcome his grotesque fate. He literally drives himself into a blind obliviousness with social games, psychological tricks, personal preoccupations so far removed from the reality of his situation that they are forms of madness—agreed madness, shared madness, disguised and dignified madness, but madness all the same. (p. 27)”...As <a href=http://www.glendon.org/about-glendon/glendon-staff/>Robert W. Firestone</a> [b. 1930] (1994) points out death is not a choice, it comes for us all. What counts is how we live and fight our resistance to the good life. He encourages us to “make each day count” as in the book of Ecclesiastes, which says, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest” (Ecclesiastes 9:10 KJV). (<a href=http://webspace.ship.edu/adtome/>Adrian Tomer</a> [b. 1944], <a hrf=http://www.calu.edu/academics/faculty/grafton-eliason.aspx>Grafton T. Eliason</a> [b. 1967] and <a href=http://www.drpaulwong.com/>Paul T.P. Wong</a> [b. 1937], “Separation Theory and Voice Therapy: Philosophical Underpinnings and Applications to Death Anxiety Across the Life Span”, <i>Existential and Spiritual Issues in Death Attitudes</I>, 367)</blockquote>
The realization of death need not be depressing. <a href=http://faculty.biola.edu/edward_curtis/>Edward M. Curtis</a> (b. 1940) acknowledges:
<blockquote>Qoheleth’s observations could lead one to resignation and despair, but he urges his readers to greater diligence, because he sees a basis for confidence and hope in fearing God and trusting in his providence. This does not guarantee a life that is materially prosperous and trouble free, but it does enable people to face an unknown future confidently, because they know God’s purposes cannot be thwarted by the enigmatic experiences that are part of life. (Curtis, <i>Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (Teach the Text Commentary Series)</I>, 86)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.andysochor.com/>Andy Sochor</a> (b. 1980) encourages:
<blockquote>Reminding us that our lives are temporary should not be dispiriting to us, causing us to abandon our labors in life because there is no lasting benefit from them. Rather we are to work hard and take advantage of the time we have now. After we reach Sheol (the grave), there will be no more work, preparations, or learning to do. We will be judged based upon what we do after this life. Therefore, we must do the best we can now to accomplish those things we ought to be doing. (Sochor, <i>Vanity of Vanities: Notes on Ecclesiastes</I>, 75)</blockquote>
Frank Johnson (b. 1943) supports:
<blockquote>Sheol’s rewards are even less attractive than life among the living. Qoheleth resolutely believes that persons can find life enjoyable, even with limited knowledge, with no retribution and with a common fate. (Johnson, <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Cokesbury Basic Bible Commentary)</I>, 121)</blockquote>
We must do what we can when we can. Time is a factor when “you only got a hundred years to live”. <a href=https://www.facebook.com/roland.ehlke>Roland C. Ehlke</a> (b. 1944) remarks:
<blockquote>Death is certain. Life is short. Once you’ve gone, you’ll never return to live on this earth. Why, then, waste time fretting over things you can’t control? ‘Enjoy life,’ urges the Teacher. You can enjoy life without abandoning yourself to sin and madness [Ecclesiastes 9:7-10]. (Ehlke, <i>Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (People’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 96)</blockquote>
Martin Sicker (b. 1931) implores:
<blockquote>Time is man’s most valuable possession and should not be wasted; it is a non-recoverable asset. Therefore, whatever one is able to do to extract the most rational enjoyment from life should be done expeditiously and with appropriate determination and fervor. Put another way, Koheleth may be understood as urging that one not mortgage the present for an uncertain future aside from the certainty of the grave. (Sicker, <i>Kohelet: The Reflections of a Judean Prince: A New Translation and Commentary</I>, 125)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.walterckaiserjr.com/>Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.</a> (b. 1933) agrees:
<blockquote>The time to labor for God is while we are still on this side of the grave, for when death comes, the day of opportunity will have passed. The phrasing of Ecclesiastes 9:10 is reminiscent of Colossians 3:23: “Whatever your task, do it heartily, as unto the Lord and not to men.” Men must not opt out of total, earnest, and dedicated involvement in the privilege of work. They may think that the presence of evil and their impending death are massive obstacles to believing that God has a good plan for all fo life, and therefore they may refuse to do anything pending further disclosures on the subject. But such inactivity is wrong. Counsels the teacher, “Get involved and work vigorously” to the glory of God while you still have life in your bones. (Kaiser, <i>Ecclesiastes: Total Life (Everyman’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 101)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.tbcfullerton.net/about/staff/rev-dave-balsley>David Balsley</a> (b. 1946) strengthens:
<blockquote>Because life is fleeting (as Solomon has just observed in Ecclesiastes 9:9), we seldom have enough time to do all the things we think we would like to do...Anything we are going to get done during the brief lifetime we spend on this earth will have to be done now or the opportunity will soon be gone. So Solomon calls his readers to diligence - to do with all our might whatever it is we decide to do with the short span of time we call our lifetime. Life will soon be over, and the chance to do what we wanted to do will be gone. (Balsley, <i>The Puzzled Preacher: A Pastoral Exposition of Ecclesiastes</i>, 238)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.spurgeon.org/aboutsp.htm>Charles H. Spurgeon</a> (1834-1892) belabors:
<blockquote>Let us not wait for large opportunities, or for a different kind of work, but do just the things we “<i>find to do</I>” day by day. We have no other time in which to live. The past is gone; the future has not arrived; we never shall have any time but the present. Then do not wait until your experience has ripened into maturity before you attempt to serve God. Endeavor now to bring forth fruit. Serve God now, but be careful as to the way in which you perform what you find to do, “<i>do it with your might</I> [Ecclesiastes 9:10].” Do it promptly; do not fritter away your life in thinking of what you intend to do tomorrow as if that could recompense for the idleness of today. No man ever served God by doing things tomorrow. (Spurgeon, <i>Morning by Morning</i>, 331)</blockquote>
<A HREF=http://library.furman.edu/specialcollections/furman/johnson_biography.htm>L.D. Johnson</a> (1916-1981) charges:
<blockquote>Ecclesiastes 9:10 is the ultimate statement of “seize the day.” Don’t be halfhearted about the task at hand. Wherever you are, be all there. Give it your best shot, no matter whether the assignment seems challenging or not. Why? Because that is the only “shot” you have at life—the one at hand. (Johnson, <i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Layman’s Bible Book Commentary)</I>, 120)</blockquote>
We should use our time, perhaps the scarcest of human resources, wisely as lost time is never found. Since death marks the end of an era, Koheleth reminds his readers to act now as life is a limited time offer. There is no time like the present! Strike while the iron is hot! So do something. Now.
<p>How does the inevitability of death affect your life? What meaning does death bring to life? What is on your bucket list? Should our actions be taken with a sense of urgency? What should you be doing now?
<p>“Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” - <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/theodoreroosevelt>Theodore R. Roosevelt</a> (1858-1919)Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-31198531978560997322014-06-18T15:00:00.000-07:002014-09-01T15:21:20.843-07:00How Jesus Turned Water to Wine (John 2:6)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z9M0zaIelbw/U55lvK_SjJI/AAAAAAAAI3s/eTJQr2sZX70/s1600/John2.6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z9M0zaIelbw/U55lvK_SjJI/AAAAAAAAI3s/eTJQr2sZX70/s320/John2.6.jpg" /></a></div><b>How many jars of water were turned into wine at the wedding at Cana? Six</b>
<p>The Gospel of John famously records Jesus’ first miracle as changing water into wine (John 2:1-11). This transformation occurs at a wedding in Cana that predates Jesus’ public ministry (John 2:1-2). Jesus’ mother, Mary, alerts him that the supply of wine is exhausted, an egregious faux pas by the standards of the day (John 2:3-5). The text then interrupts the narrative to direct the reader’s attention to six water pots resting nearby (John 2:6).
<blockquote>Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. (John 2:6 NASB)</blockquote>
Translators describe these containers as “stone water jars” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), “stone waterpots” (ASV, NASB), “waterpots of stone’ (KJV, NJKV), “stone jars” (RSV) or “stoneware water pots” (MSG).
<p><a href=http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/>Andreas J. Köstenberger</a> (b. 1957) locates:
<blockquote>The jars stood <i>there</I>: this means either in the dining room itself (<a href=https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/theology/people/roland.deines>Roland Deines</a> [b. 1961] 1993:274) or, perhaps more likely, in a passage near the courtyard where the well would be (<a href=https://sites.google.com/site/ritvawilliams/>Ritva H. Williams</a> [b. 1960] 1997:685-86). (Köstenberger, <i>John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 96)</blockquote>
This notification marks the preparation of the miracle phase of the story (John 2:6). Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) interprets:
<blockquote>The narrator...establishes the setting for Jesus to act. He tells the audience about the presence of six water jars there in the scene (John 2:6). The phrase “for the purification rituals of the Jews” explains why the jars are there (ἐκει). (Hera, <i>Christology and Discipleship in John 17</I>, 65)</blockquote>
Jesus instructs the servants to fill the six receptacles with water and then proceeds to transform their contents into wine (John 2:7-10). The story, unique to John’s gospel, concludes with a notation that this act marks the first of Jesus’ “signs” (John 2:11).
<p>The specifications regarding the water pots stand out as they garner an inordinate amount of press (John 2:6). In fact, the only thing that John describes in detail at the entire wedding is these seemingly innocuous water receptacles. The reader is presented with far more information than would be thought necessary: their number, material, purpose and capacity.
<p><a href=http://interimministrypartners.com/partners/mark-frost>Mark Frost</a> (b. 1950) observes:
<blockquote>The story itself is brief [John 2:1-11]. The author is sparing in detail...except when he describes the water jars [John 2:6]. He focuses our attention on the jars long enough to point out considerable detail. Six–count them–six jars. Made of stone, not clay. The twenty-to-thirty gallon jumbo size. Most significantly, we’re told that they were the kind the Jews used for ceremonial washing. These jars were all about religious activity–exclusively so. Thus, the story implicitly poses the question, “What if someone could transform our religious activity into the exquisite joy of fine wine?” (<a href=http://www.lipscomb.edu/bible/faculty>Dave Fleer</a> [b. 1953] and <a href=http://hst.edu/our-community/faculty/bland/>Dave Bland</a> [b. 1953], “He Always Had Some Mighty Fine Wine”, <i>Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines</i>, 100)</blockquote>
The water pots pique the reader’s interest. <a href=http://www.goshen.edu/joannab/>Jo-Ann A. Brant</a> (b. 1956) comments:
<blockquote>John...provides a piece of scenic detail with enough prevision to provoke speculation about intent. <b>There were six stone</b> [or stoneware, hard-baked clay] <b>water jars unattended there in accord with the purification</b> [rites] <b>of the Jews with the capacity to hold up to two or three measure</b> (John 2:6). (Brant, <i>John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</i>, 57)</blockquote>
The tantalizing note has captured the attention of interpreters throughout the centuries (John 2:6). <a href=http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/people/staff-list/dr-mark-edwards.html>Mark Edwards</a> (b. 1962) canvasses:
<blockquote>Bede [672-735] derives the <b>purification</b> as a Pharisaic rite like the washing of hands at Mark 7:3 (Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] 1997:83). John Chrysostom [347-407] (<i>Homily</I> 21.2) objects that wine would never have been stored in such a vessel. Isaac of Stella [1100-1169] argues that, as the week contains the seventh day apart from the days of labour, so the six vessels represent the insufficiency of human striving; the two measures stand for the dual sense of Scripture, and the old wine for the wisdom of the Gentiles, which causes them to ‘reel like drunken men’ (1979:88, 85, citing Psalm 106:27). (Edwards, <i>John Through the Centuries</I>, 100)</blockquote>
Some have construed this detail as one of multiple evidences in John’s gospel of an eyewitness account. <a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/d-moody-smith>D. Moody Smith</a> (b. 1931) notes:
<blockquote>The Gospel gives the impression of “things seen” [John 3:32] (details such as six water pots [John 2:6], the whip of cords [John 2:15], Jesus’ fatigue at the well [John 4:6], and others). (Smith, <i>John Among the Gospels</I>, 175)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/thomas-schreiner/>Thomas R. Schreiner</a> (b. 1954) inventories:
<blockquote>Numerous minor details in the Gospel suggest eyewitness remembrance: the six water pots in Cana (John 2:6), the naming of Philip and Andrew (John 6:7), the barley loaves at the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:9), the detail that the disciples rowed out twenty-five to thirty stadia (John 6:19), the odor that filled the house when Mary anointed Jesus’ body for burial (John 12:3), Peter’s beckoning of the Beloved Disciple (John 13:24), the reaction of the soldiers to Jesus’ arrest (John 18:6), the name of the high priest’s servant (John 18:10), the weight of embalming spices (John 19:39), the knowledge of the disciples’ reactions (John 2:11, 24, 6:15, 61, 13:1), and the catch of 153 fish (John 21:11). These details do not prove that the author was an eyewitness, but they are consistent with such a view. (Schreiner, <i>New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ</I>, 82-83)</blockquote>
This particular brand of specificity is typical of the fourth gospel. <a href=http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/religion/faculty/anderson.html>Paul N. Anderson</a> (b. 1956) educates:
<blockquote>A[n]...aspect of spatial knowledge in the Fourth Gospel involves the use of measurements and references to particular distances and weights within the narrative. Before the sea crossing, the boat was twenty-five or thirty <i>stadia</I> from the shore (three or four miles; John 6:19); Bethany was fifteen <i>stadia</I> (just under two miles; John 11:18) from Jerusalem; the boat at Jesus’ postresurrection appearance was two hundred <i>pēchōn</I> from shore (a hundred yards; John 21:8); the six water jars held two or three <i>metrētas</I> each (twenty or thirty gallons; John 2:6). Likewise, the weight of the spices to embalm Jesus was one hundred pounds (John 19:39); the cost of the bread would be two hundred <i>denarii</I> (eight months of wages; John 6:7); and the cost of the perfume at the anointing of Jesus would be three hundred <i>denarii</I> (a full year’s wages; John 12:5). (Anderson, <i>The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John</I>, 204)</blockquote>
The jars’ presence is in conjunction with “the Jewish custom of purification” (John 2:6 NASB). <a href=http://www.goshen.edu/joannab/>Jo-Ann A. Brant</a> (b. 1956) acknowledges:
<blockquote>Why jars for purification are present is not clear [John 2:6]. They may have been used for cleansing of utensils in preparation for the wedding or filling basins for hand washing, in which case the number and size of the empty jars could be an index to the number of guests. John’s underscoring that these are according to Jewish practice may point to conformity to Judean practice in the Galilee and may signify a response to Southern polemic. Judeans thought that Galileans did not keep their high standards of purity. (Brant, <i>John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</i>, 57)</blockquote>
Leon Morris (1914-2006) conjectures:
<blockquote>The half dozen represented a good store of water for carrying out the kind of purification of which we read in Mark 7:1-4. Before the meal servants would have poured water over the hands of every guest. If there was a large number of guests a good deal of water would have been needed. John does not elaborate, but says enough for his Greek readers to understand why so much was provided. (Morris, <i>The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 160)</blockquote>
<a href=http://dotcms.tiu.edu/person/Carson/D.A./>D.A. Carson</a> (b. 1946) connects:
<blockquote>In the context of a wedding feast, perhaps the ritual washing of certain utensils and guests’ hands is especially in view (<i>cf.</I> Mark 7:3-4; for the regulations on washing <i>cf.</I> Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 1.695-705), but if so John sees this as representative of the broader question of the place of all ceremonial washings (<i>cf.</I> John 3:25). Their purpose provides a clue to one of the meanings of the story: the water represents the old order of Jewish law and custom, which Jesus was to replace with something better (<i>cf.</I> John 1:16). (Carson, <i>The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary</I>, 173)</blockquote>
The jars are comprised of stone (Greek <i>líthinos</I>, John 2:6). This stone composition, as opposed to earthenware, directly relates to the purpose of purification (John 2:6).
<p><a href=http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/>Andreas J. Köstenberger</a> (b. 1957) informs:
<blockquote>The jars were made of <i>stone</I>...because stone was not itself considered to contract uncleanness (<a href=http://archlgy.haifa.ac.il/staff/reich.htm>Ronny Reich</a> [b. 1947] 1995; cf. <a href=https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/theology/people/roland.deines>Roland Deines</a> [b. 1961] 1993:29-34; <a href=http://www.bangor.ac.uk/spar/staff/thomas.php>John Christopher Thomas</a> 1991b:162-65). (Köstenberger, <i>John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 96)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/>Bruce J. Malina</a> (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) explain:
<blockquote>Stone water jars were preferable for holding water for purification since clay pots had to be destroyed if they were contaminated by contact with the carcass of an unclean animal (Leviticus 11:33). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, <i>Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John</i>, 69)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.talbot.edu/ce20/educators/catholic/gerard_sloyan/>Gerard Sloyan</a> (b. 1919) surmises:
<blockquote>Stone jars (John 2:6) would have required less purification than jars of baked clay. Their non-porosity made a great difference to the laws of purity. (Sloyan, <i>John (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</i>, 35)</blockquote>
Leon Morris (1914-2006) contrasts:
<blockquote>Clay pots could become unclean, and if this happened they must be destroyed (Leviticus 11:33). But some vessels did not become unclean (<i>Mishnah Kelim</I> 10:1; <i>Mishnah Parah</I> 3:2). (Morris, <i>The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 160)</blockquote>
The caveat regarding the use of stone jars during purification stems from tradition and is not explicitly stated in the Old Testament. Jey J. Kanagaraj (b. 1948) clarifies:
<blockquote>The use of “stone jars” for purification is mentioned not in Leviticus 11:32-38, but in the Mishnah, a Rabbinic text of the second century that reflects the life situation of the late first century (<i>Mishnah Kelim</I> 5:11; <i>Mishnah Besah</I> 2:3). (Kanagaraj, <i>John (New Covenant Commentary Series)</I>, 22)</blockquote>
C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) traces:
<blockquote>Stone, unlike earthenware, did not itself contract uncleanness. This is explicitly stated by Maimonides [1135-1204], and seems to be borne out of earlier evidence (see Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] II, 406). Stone vessels are accordingly especially suitable for water used for purification purposes. (Barrett, <i>The Gospel According to St. John</I>, 191)</blockquote>
Insight into these receptacles has deepened in recent times. <a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1917&menu_id=72>James H. Charlesworth</a> (b. 1940) studies:
<blockquote>Most commentators, intent on understanding the meaning of the pericope in which Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), have missed the importance of an oblique aside made by the evangelist: “Six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons” (John 2:6). Now, with the <i>Temple Scroll</I>, the longest of all the Dead Sea Scrolls, we possess a pre-70 C.E., firsthand insight into the regulations and specifications for purification. A house and everything within it, especially valuable commodities stored in pottery vessels, become impure when one who is ritually unclean enters...11QTemple 50:10-19...Excavations in the upper city of Jerusalem have unearthed large stone vessels, like the ones the evangelist notes in passing; all of them antedate the destruction of 70 and caused the excavator Nahman Avigad [1907-1992] to report, “we were astonished by the rich and attractive variety of the stone vessels.” Hence, the evangelist, who was most likely a Jew, and probably his fellow Jews–not only his sources–possessed considerable knowledge about Jewish purification rights. We now know from other areas of research that the stipulations for purification developed considerably from the time of Herod the Great [73-4 BCE] in 37 B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. (<a href=http://about.mercer.edu/deans/culpepper/>R. Alan Culpepper</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1912&menu_id=72>C. Clifton Black</a> [b. 1955], “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John”, <i>Exploring the Gospel of John: in honor of <a href=http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/d-moody-smith>D. Moody Smith</a> [b. 1931]</i>, 67-69)</blockquote>
The archaeological record is replete with specimens which corroborate John’s account (John 2:6). <a href=http://www2.uni-frankfurt.de/41029959/claussen>Carsten Claussen</a> (b. 1966) apprises:
<blockquote>Archaeologists have found such jars at many Jewish sites in Palestine, Judea, Galilee, and the Golan. They appear during the reign of Herod the Great [73-4 BCE] and quickly disappear after 70 CE. While they are widespread in Palestine, they are almost absent in the Diaspora. Recently, a few small vessels have also been found at Khirbet Cana. The jars mentioned in John 2:6-7 can be identified with large vessels, which were turned on a lathe. They could contain about 100 liters each. The Mishnah calls them <i>kallal</I>. <a href=http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/15262/Jonathan_L_Reed/index.aspx>Jonathan L. Reed</a> [b. 1963] rightly stresses that, due to their sophisticated production technique, they were “luxury items.” Such luxurious jars are virtually absent in peasant villages like Capernaum, but rather frequent in rich urban sites like Sepphoris. The reader is again impressed by this rather luxurious wedding feast, crowned by an incredible 600 liters of wine, of excellent quality, in rather expensive stone vessels. (<a href=https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1917&menu_id=72>James H. Charlesworth</a> [b. 1940] and <a href=http://web.etf.cuni.cz/ETFKNZ-24.html>Petr Pokorný</a> [b. 1933], “Turning Water to Wine: Re-reading the Miracle at the Wedding in Cana”, <i>Jesus Research: An International Perspective (<a href=http://www.princeton.edu/>Princeton</a>-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus)</i>, 95)</blockquote>
Archaeologist Nahman Avigad (1907-1992) recounts:
<blockquote>The discovery of stone vessels became a routine matter in our work, for whenever we approached a stratum of the Second Temple period, and a building which was burnt during the destruction of the city in AD 70 began revealing itself, they invariably made an appearance as well. Thus, even in the absence of other specific chronological cues, we were often able to date a structure as Herodian solely on the basis of the presence of even a single stone vessel—or even mere fragments. (Avigad, “A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley”, <a href=http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il/iej.htm><i>Israel Exploration Journal</i></a> 12 (1962), 174)</blockquote>
The reason stone vessels can be used in the dating of artifacts is because they represent a very specific period in the evolution of liquid storage.
<p>Hydrologist Francis H. Chapelle (b. 1951) chronicles:
<blockquote>There is no lack of archaeological evidence for the use of stoneware urns as water-storage devices in the ancient world. But there is documentary evidence as well, sometimes coming from unexpected sources. In the Gospel of John, for example, the first miracle that Jesus performs is turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana [John 2:1-11]...This passage gives just the briefest hint of the role that water-storing urns played in Jewish households, and it simply confirms what archaeologists find when they excavate sites in the Middle East...The urns of Cana are an example of one of the most important water-storing technologies in human history...The introduction of glassy glazes essentially perfected the oil-, wine-, and water-storing capabilities of stoneware. It was not long before the use of these glazes, however, led to the development of a brand-new material for storing liquids. The new material was glass. (Chapelle, <i>Wellsprings: A Natural History of Bottled Spring Waters</I>, 69)</blockquote>
In referencing the purification ritual, the Jews reenter the gospel’s focus (John 2:6). <a href=http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/>Andreas J. Köstenberger</a> (b. 1957) notifies:
<blockquote>For readers unfamiliar with Palestinian Jewish custom, the narrator...adds the explanatory aside that the these jars were there “in keeping with the cleansing ritual of the Jews [John 2:6].” (Köstenberger, <i>John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 96)</blockquote>
Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) understands:
<blockquote>Keeping “the Jews” in his narrative space and time as he does, the Evangelist allows the reader to understand that the story about Jesus, with its denouement, takes place in “Jewish” space and time. His story is to be a Jewish story. The use of the phrase “of the Jews” in John 2:6 and John 2:13 does more, however, than simply identify Jesus’ story as a Jewish story. The usage allows the reader to gain a glimpse of the relationship between Jesus and Jewish space and time. The jugs that were available for the Jewish rites of purification are employed by Jesus as vessels in which Jesus makes available the abundance of first-quality wine that symbolizes the surfeit of gifts given at the (messianic) nuptials. (<a href=https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/researchers/7/>Reimund Bieringer</a> [b. 1957], <a href=http://www.didierpollefeyt.be/homepage/>Didier Pollefeyt</a> [b. 1965] and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville [b. 1972], “Speaking of the Jews: ‘Jews’ in the Discourse Material of the Fourth Gospel”. <i>Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel</I>, 159-160)</blockquote>
Many scholars have connected the water jars with Judaism as a whole. <a href=http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/>Andreas J. Köstenberger</a> (b. 1957) introduces:
<blockquote>The mention of Jewish purification (required by law) may subtly reinforce the contrast drawn by the evangelist between the law given through Moses (John 1:17) and the new messianic provision by Jesus (Adolf Schlatter [1852-1938] [1948:69] cites John 13:10). (Köstenberger, <i>John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 97)</blockquote>
Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) expounds:
<blockquote>The water jars <i>themselves</I> may have been mentioned for symbolic reasons. C.H. Dodd [1884-1973], <i>The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel</I>, 299, believes that they “stand for the entire system of Jewish ceremonial observance — and by implication for religion upon that level, wherever it is found, as distinguished from religion upon the level of <i>alētheia</I> [“truth”]...Thus the first of [Jesus’] signs already symbolizes the doctrine [“the law was given through Moses; (deep) Grace and (deep) Truth came through Jesus Christ],” John 1:17. On the same page (note 2), Dodd cites Origen [184-253]’s <i>Commentary on John</I>, 13:62, 277-78: “And truly before Jesus the Scripture was water, but from the time of Jesus it has become wine to us.” C.K. Barrett [1917-2011], <i>The Gospel according to St. John</I>, 192, believes John intends symbolism in the jars: “This incident illustrates at once the poverty of the old dispensation with its merely ceremonial cleansing and the richness of the new, in which the blood of Christ is available both for cleansing (John 1:29) and for drink (John 6:53). If the initial reference to the water jars is to the supercession of Judaism, Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976] [120] is right [Barrett concludes] to generalize: the water ‘stands for everything that is a substitute for the revelation, everything by which man thinks he can live and which yet fails him when put to the test.’” Comparably, Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], <i>The Gospel according to John</I> 1:105. Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975], <i>John</I> 1:179, gives a helpful summary: “In the older rites of purification man attempted to make himself clean before God. But now, in the ‘<i>hour</I>,’ comes the new, the new hour of God: man does not take his own impurity away; ‘<i>the Lamb of God</I>’ does [that] (John 1:29, 36).” (Bruner, <i>The Gospel of John: A Commentary</I>, 139)</blockquote>
This reading is far from unanimous. <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-dennis/4a/a55/985>John A. Dennis</a> (b. 1962) objects:
<blockquote>I take issue with <a href=http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/sbf/segr/profs/Manns.html>Frédéric Manns</a> [b. 1942]’s interpretation of the Cana symbolism: “Jean a l’intention de montrer l’imperfection de la loi juive” (<i>L’Evangile à lumière du Judaïsme</I> [<a href=http://sbf.custodia.org/>Studium Biblicum Franciscanum</a> Analecta 33; <a href=https://www.jerusalem.muni.il/jer_main/defaultnew.asp?lng=2>Jerusalem</a>: Franciscan Press, 1991], 103). This assessment is followed by <a href=http://marycoloe.org.au/homepage/>Mary L. Coloe</a> [b. 1949] , <i>God Dwells with Us</I>, 69: “At the wedding of Cana, the six jars of water point to the inadequacy of Israel’s religious institutions, an inadequacy now brought to perfection by the coming of the true bridegroom.” There is nothing in the text that would support this kind of <i>over-expectation</I>. The text, with its symbolism, simply argues that Jesus is bringing the expectations of the messianic age to their intended climax. There is a sense in which these Jewish expectations do not reach their intended fulfillment until the messianic age, which for John is the advent of Jesus, but this idea is not substantially different from other Jewish messianic expectations, namely, that only in the messianic era will the expectations reach their climax. The difference between John’s view and other Jewish views is clear: in <i>Jesus the Messiah</I> the hopes and promises engendered by the Prophets are being fulfilled. The language of “inadequacy” is misleading therefore. (Dennis, <i>Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47-52</I>, 166)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.uu.nl/hum/staff/PBASmit>Peter-Ben Smit</a> (b. 1979) advises:
<blockquote>It seems...preferable not to read too much into the apparent emphasis on the <i>Jewish</i> character of the six stone vessels in John 2:6, as it is part of John’s style to refer to anything Jewish as explicitly Jewish without necessarily characterizing it negatively. As neither “Jewishness” nor purification are of central importance in John 2:1-11, the note that these large stone vessels belong to Jewish rites, should be taken as explanatory. The same might be true of the note as a whole: its function is simply to explain why the vessels are there. (<a href=http://www.godgeleerdheid.vu.nl/nl/over-de-faculteit/medewerkers/wetenschappelijk-personeel-g-l/krans.asp>Jan Krans</a>, <a href=http://www.godgeleerdheid.vu.nl/nl/over-de-faculteit/medewerkers/wetenschappelijk-personeel-g-l/l-j-lietaert-peerbolte/index.asp>Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte</a> [b. 1963], Smit and <a href=http://www.godgeleerdheid.vu.nl/nl/over-de-faculteit/medewerkers/wetenschappelijk-personeel-t-z/zwiep.asp>Arie Zwiep</a> [b. 1964], “Alternative Patronage in John 2:1-11?”, <i>Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of <a href=http://www.th.vu.nl/nl/over-de-faculteit/medewerkers/wetenschappelijk-personeel-a-f/m-c-de-boer/index.asp>Martinus C. de Boer</a> [b. 1947]</i>, 154)</blockquote>
Reading the ceremonial jars as representative of Judaism can even be dangerous. <a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/williamson_jr_the_rev_dr_and_mrs_lamar/>Lamar Williamson, Jr.</a> (b. 1926) cautions:
<blockquote>Some interpreters, focusing on the six stone jars for the Jewish rites of purification (John 2:6) have seen here a story about the changing of the water of Jewish ritual into the wine of the gospel. The theme of the rejection of Judaism and its replacement by Christianity (supersessionism), so common to much patristic biblical interpretation, has led to unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people through the centuries. In the text, “the miracle is...neither a rejection nor a replacement of the old, but the creation of something new in the midst of Judaism.” In today’s world, a supersessionist interpretation of the text is inappropriate, even inexcusable. (Williamson, <i>Preaching the Gospel of John: Proclaiming the Living Word</I>, 27-28)</blockquote>
If one chooses to connect the water pots with the religion they serve, it is worth remembering that Jesus does not destroy the jars but rather recommissions them (John 2:6-10).
<p>Ian D. Mackay (b. 1936) characterizes:
<blockquote>John’s changing of water to wine reflects his more positive, fulfillment approach to the Jewish religion - the six purification water parts are not destroyed but filled with something ‘absolutely’ superior [John 2:6-10]. (Mackay, <i>John’s Relationship with Mark: An Analysis of John 6 in the Light of Mark 6-8</I>, 97)</blockquote>
The text also notes the quantity of the water pots: There are a half dozen of these vessels present at the wedding (John 2:6). This number represents an abundance.
<p><a href=http://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/>Bruce J. Malina</a> (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) brief:
<blockquote>Most village families would have had no more than one such jar (which held about twenty gallons), hence the presence of six stone jars may indicate that others have been borrowed from neighbors for the occasion. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, <i>Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John</i>, 69)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm>Kenneth E. Bailey</a> (b. 1930) concurs:
<blockquote>If we reject allegory and assume an authentic detail in John 2:6, we would have there an illustration of jars gathered from the neighbors for the large gathering. The average family would have only one. (Bailey, <i>Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke</I>, 123)</blockquote>
C.H. Dodd (1884-1973) footnotes:
<blockquote>In early Christian art the six waterpots regularly balance the five, or seven, loaves in symbolic allusions to the Eucharist. (Dodd, <i>Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel</I>, 224)</blockquote>
Some have read the number six allegorically. <a href=http://www.goshen.edu/joannab/>Jo-Ann A. Brant</a> (b. 1956) mentions:
<blockquote>The number six may signify incompletion or labor. Six is the number of days God works before resting on the Sabbath [Genesis 1:1-31]. (Brant, <i>John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</i>, 57)</blockquote>
When the numeral is associated with incompleteness it is also connected with Judaism. Leon Morris (1914-2006) discusses:
<blockquote>Some commentators find symbolism in the number six [John 2:6]. The Jews saw seven as the perfect number, and six accordingly was short of perfection and thus lacking, incomplete. The six pots are then held to symbolize Judaism as imperfect. There may be something in this, but a strong objection is that the narrative contains nothing that would symbolize completeness, which would surely be required to correspond to the incomplete. Jesus does not create or produce a seventh pot. (Morris, <i>The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 160-61)</blockquote>
Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) deliberates:
<blockquote>Along with many others, C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] rejects this suggestion, as he claims Jesus does not create a seventh jar to bring the number to perfection (<i>The Gospel according to St. John</I>, 191). This misses the point. The narrator merely wishes to indicate that Judaism, along with its rituals, falls short of fullness. On this, see Marie-Émile Boismard [1916-2004], <i>Moïse ou Jésus; Essai de Christologie Johannique</I> (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 84; <a href=http://www.leuven.be/>Leuven</a>: <a href=http://upers.kuleuven.be/en>University Press</a>, 1988) 56. The good wine (John 2:10) created by openness (John 2:5: the mother) and obedience to the word of Jesus (John 2:7-8: the attendants) provides that fullness. (Moloney, <i>Belief in the Word: Reading John 1-4</I>, 85)</blockquote>
Some have seen the entire story as pertaining to incompleteness (John 2:1-10). Joseph A. Grassi (1922-2010) connects:
<blockquote>These two verses [John 2:6-7] have a strong emphasis on filling or completion. The number six...is a familiar symbol of incompletion in the bible [John 2:6]. The jars themselves hold an enormous quantity of water, but they are still far short of their capacity. At Jesus’ order they are filled [John 2:7]. The execution of the command is carefully noted: “they filled them <i>to the brim</I> [John 2:7]”. Jesus brings them to overflowing capacity. The Greek of John 2:6 literally reads that the jars held from two to three measures [John 2:6]. The work of Jesus is to fulfill the Father’s design to give the Spirit without any measure: “It is <i>not by measure</I> that he gives the Spirit” (John 3:34). The Pentecostal account in Acts also emphasizes this filling by the Spirit: “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4); they were filled or drunk with new wine (Acts 2:13); it is the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17); it is an overflowing gift that goes out from the disciples to believers in the crowd; Peter tells them that if they repent and believe, they will receive the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). (David E. Orton, “The Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11): A Pentecostal Meditation?”, <i>The Composition of John’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum</I>, 127)</blockquote>
Throughout the centuries, expositors have made use of the number six (John 2:6). <a href=http://www.princeofpeacecluster.com/staff/view/id/149>Ray E. Atwood</a> (b. 1966) documents:
<blockquote>An interesting interpretation that Bernard [of Clairvaux, 1090-1153] uses, typical of medieval preachers, is the symbolic meaning of the six stone water jars at the Wedding Feast of Cana (John 2:6). Bernard explains them in terms of six steps of repentance (since they were used for purification): (1) sorrow for sin; (2) confession of sin; (3) the generous giving of alms; (4) forgiving those who sin against us; (5) the mortification of our flesh; and (6) new obedience (Bernard, <i>In Epiphania</I>, Sermo V, 4)...In another sermon, this one for monks, Bernard interprets the water jars as symbolizing: (1) chastity, (2) fasting, (3) manual labor, (4) keeping of vigils, (5) silence, and (6) obedience (Bernard, <i>In Epiphania</I> Sermo VI, 7). (Atwood, <i>Masters of Preaching: The Most Poignant and Powerful Homilists in Church History</I>, 170)</blockquote>
The six stone water pots each have a capacity of two to three measures (John 2:6). This has been rendered “two or three firskins” (ASV, KJV) which most contemporary translations convert to “twenty or thirty gallons (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Though the six vessels may not have been uniform, each represents a warehouse club size, larger than most modern kegs. This abundance might be characterized by the Coneheads as “mass quantities”.
<p><a href=http://www.goshen.edu/joannab/>Jo-Ann A. Brant</a> (b. 1956) considers:
<blockquote>It is not clear if the total volume is two to three measures or if each jar holds that amount, making the total twelve to eighteen measures [John 2:6]. A measure is about nine English gallons, so whatever the volume it is copious. (Brant, <i>John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</i>, 57)</blockquote>
<a href=http://enet.cn.edu/profiles/Borchert.pdf>Gerald L. Borchert</a> (b. 1932) calculates:
<blockquote>This segment of the story begins with a notation that there were present six large stone jars used in Jewish water purification rites, each capable of containing between two and three measures (John 2:6), each measure by calculation being roughly between eight and nine gallons. Each jar therefore contained somewhere between sixteen and twenty-seven gallons (the NIV “twenty to thirty gallons” in very close). Obviously these six jars could contain an immense amount of water (Borchert, <i>John 1-11 (New American Commentary)</i>, 156)</blockquote>
The Greek term for measures is <i>metrētēs</I> (John 2:6). C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) develops:
<blockquote>In classical usage the μετρητής was a measure equivalent to the ἀμφορεύς, a liquid measure of ‘1½ Roman <i>amphorae</I> or nearly nine gallons’ (Henry G. Liddell [1811-1898] and Robert Scott [1811-1887] <i>s.v.</I> ἀμφορεύς). In the Septuagint μετρητής renders the Hebrew בת (<i>bath</I>) an almost identical measure. Each waterpot therefore contained 18-24 gallons; say 120 gallons in all. (Barrett, <i>The Gospel According to St. John</I>, 192)</blockquote>
Merrill C. Tenney (1904-1985) updates:
<blockquote>The combined capacity of the waterpots was about 150 gallons. Reckoning a half pint to a glass, these vessels would contain about 2400 servings of wine—certainly enough to supply a large number of people for several days. In quality and quantity the new-made wine more than satisfied the needs and taste of those who attended the feast. (Tenney, <i>John: The Gospel of Belief</I>, 83)</blockquote>
These pots would be heavy when filled. A gallon of water weighs 8.34 pounds meaning that the jar’s contents alone measure between 166.8-250.2 pounds.
<p><a href=https://bible.org/users/bob-deffinbaugh>Robert L. Deffinbaugh</a> (b. 1943) imagines:
<blockquote>We would have to agree that these stone waterpots would be heavy when empty, and even heavier yet when full (the weight of the water alone in a full pot would be about 200 pounds). It does not appear Jesus intended for the servants to carry these pots away, dump them, refill them, and then carry them back. They are far too heavy for this, especially when filled with water. (Deffinbaugh, <i>That You Might Believe: Study on the Gospel of John</i>, 66)</blockquote>
Given the brimming state of these water pots, the amount of wine produced is excessive (John 2:7). <a href=http://divinity.wfu.edu/faculty/faculty-listings/>Gail R. O’Day</a> (b. 1954) and <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/hylen.cfm>Susan E. Hylen</a> (b. 1968) reveal:
<blockquote>The quantity and capacity of the stone jars...is unusual, even for a large wedding, and their description enhances the extravagance of the miracle (John 2:6). Jesus turns an abundance of water into wine. (O’Day and Hylen, <i>John (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 36)</blockquote>
The sheer volume could also serve to validate the miracle. Beauford H. Bryant (1923-1997) and <a href=http://krausekorner.wordpress.com/>Mark S. Krause</a> (b. 1955) discern:
<blockquote>Their total content was...from 120 to 180 gallons [John 2:6]. Jesus had the servants of the feast fill them completely with water [John 2:7]. No one could therefore say that Jesus’ power was limited so that he could perform on only one or two of the jars. Likewise, he had each jar filled to its brim, so no one could assert that some magic potion was added by him to the water. When God performs a special work he does an adequate job of it! (Bryant and Krause, <i>John (College Press NIV Commentary)</i>, 73)</blockquote>
Some have seen the vessels’ immense capacity as suggestive of the wealth of the wedding party. <a href=http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/>Andreas J. Köstenberger</a> (b. 1957) suspects:
<blockquote>A large number of wedding guests must be accommodated for the course of an entire week of festivities. “The fact that there were servants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least comfortable if not opulent circumstances” (Lyman Abbott [1835-1922] 1879:30; cf. <a href=https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/theology/people/roland.deines>Roland Deines</a> [b. 1961] 1993:25 n.39). (Köstenberger, <i>John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 96-97)</blockquote>
Such excess is typical of John’s gospel which in modern parlance depicts Jesus exercising a “go big or go home” mentality. <a href=http://store.augsburgfortress.org/store/contributor/484/Robert-Kysar>Robert Kysar</a> (1934-2013) reads:
<blockquote>Their capacity suggests the enormity of the wonder about to be performed [John 2:6]. While John narrates fewer wonder stories than his canonical colleagues, each of his is remarkable by virtue of the extent of the wonder (e.g., the blind man of chapter 9 has been blind from birth [John 9:1, 2, 3]; in chapter 11 Lazarus has been dead for three days [John 11:17, 39]). (Kysar, <i>John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 46)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.regent.edu/acad/schdiv/faculty/twelftree/>Graham H. Twelftree</a> (b. 1950) agrees:
<blockquote>The most obvious feature of the miracle stories in the Fourth Gospel is that they are few and take up little space. Yet they dominate the Fourth Gospel because they are spectacular and relatively uncommon. The Cana story of water into wine is a miracle of immense proportions: six jars of twenty or thirty gallons of water each are turned into wine (John 2:6). The paralytic at Bethesda had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years but was immediately made well merely by Jesus’ word (John 5:5, 9). The story of Lazarus is self-evidently stupendous, not least because he had been in the tomb four days (John 11:39). (<a href=http://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/fellows-directory/robert-t-fortna/>Robert T. Fortna</a> [b. 1930] and <a href=http://www.ccuniversity.edu/graduate/faculty/>Tom Thatcher</a> [b. 1967], “Exorcisms in the Fourth Gospel and Synoptics”, <i>Jesus in Johannine Tradition</I>, 137-38)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www2.uni-frankfurt.de/41029959/claussen>Carsten Claussen</a> (b. 1966) supports:
<blockquote>Six stone water jars full of the best wine are certainly more than one may deem necessary [John 2:6], and the fact that the disciples collected twelve baskets of leftover pieces from the five barley loaves suggests that this multiplication surely went over the top as well [John 6:13]. Similarly, the 153 large fish of John 21:11 was certainly more than the seven disciples and Jesus needed as their “daily bread”. Clearly, in the fourth gospel there is not only one “miracle in the service of luxury”—as David Friedrich Strauss [1808-1874] once commented on the wine miracle at Cana (1860, 2:585)—but at least three of them. (<a href=http://www.brite.edu/staff/francisco-lozada-jr/>Francisco Lozada, Jr.</a> [b. 1965] and <a href=http://www.ccuniversity.edu/graduate/faculty/>Tom Thatcher</a> [b. 1967], “The Role of John 21: Discipleship in Retrospect and Redefinition”, <i>New Currents Through John: A Global Perspective</I>, 63)</blockquote>
As is often Jesus’ habit, scarcity is answered with abundance.
<p>The excess of wine has often been seen as an early indicator of Messianic fulfillment. Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) reminds:
<blockquote>The prophets had foretold of an abundance of wine in messianic days; and the abundance of wine at Cana [John 2:6-7]...would bring these prophecies to mind and point to the messianic nature of Jesus’ mission. In this messianic framework the wine represents his wisdom and teaching. (Brown, <i>The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary</I>, 29)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/people/staff/academic/burridge/index.aspx>Richard A. Burridge</a> (b. 1955) annotates:
<blockquote>The prodigious amount has invited comparisons between Jesus and the Greek god of wine, Dionysus. Various stories are told of bowls being miraculously filled with wine in his temple at Elis, or of a fountain flowing with wine in his temple at Andros. In fact, we do not need to go so far afield for inspiration. The prophet Amos uses the images of ‘the mountains dripping with sweet wine and the hills flowing with it’ for the great Day of the Lord to come, and similar examples of wine as a sign of so-called ‘messianic abundance’ can be found in other Hebrew prophets (Amos 9:13; Hosea 14:7; Jeremiah 31:12). Isaiah looks forward to the Lord giving a huge party, ‘a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines’(Isaiah 25:6) and likens God’s rejoicing over his people to a wedding (Isaiah 62:4-5). Jesus uses this image of a wedding banquet for the kingdom of heaven in his parable of a marriage feast and those who refused the invitation (Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:15-24), and he likens himself to the bridegroom in Mark 2:19. All of this, says the fourth evangelist, is being inaugurated in the here and now as Jesus begins his ministry at this wedding feast in Cana [John 2:1-11]. (Burridge, <i>John (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer)</i>, 48)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.evangelseminary.edu.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=267&Pid=5&Version=0&Cid=115&Charset=iso-8859-1>Mavis M. Leung</a> (b. 1970) reinforces:
<blockquote>The act of Jesus miraculously converting six jars of water into choice wine (John 2:1-10), within a festive ambiance, evokes the Jewish hopes for a messianic era. In both biblical and extra-biblical Jewish traditions, profuse wine is a motif associated with eschatological bliss (e.g., Isaiah 25:6; Jeremiah 31:12; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13-14; Hosea 14:7; <i>Sibylline Oracles</I> 3:620-23, 744-49). The image of copious wine appears in Jacob’s blessing to Judah in Genesis 49:8-12, a text that is read messianically in Second Temple Judaism (cf. 4Q252 V, 1-7; 1QSb V, 29; <i>Targum Onqelos</I> Genesis). In II Baruch 29:5-7, the messianic age is characterized by the delightful boon of abundant wine (cf. I Enoch 10:9). During the first and second Jewish revolts (66-70 CE, 132-135 CE), which were to some extent incited by royal-messianic ambitions, various symbols pertinent to wine (e.g., vine, grape, and wine cup/pitcher) were minted on Jewish coins. In view of the “wine” symbol’s messianic associations and John’s stated intent (John 20:30-31), the Cana “sign most probably has the function of authenticating Jesus’ messiahship. (Leung, <i>The Kingship-Cross Interplay in the Gospel of John: Jesus Death as Corroboration of His Royal Messiahship</I>, 82-83)</blockquote>
Jesus’ converting water into wine provides an early glimpse into his power (John 2:1-11). John characterizes it as a “sign” (John 2:11) and this marker points to Jesus’ true identity: the Messiah, the long awaited Christ.
<p>If the wedding party is wealthy, what does this say of Jesus’ family’s social circle? In filling religious implements with wine is Jesus mixing the sacred and the profane? In doing so does he defile religious vessels? Why does Jesus produce so much wine? Did the wedding guests actually consume all of it? What is the greatest quantity of beverages you have seen at a celebration? What does transforming water into wine indicate about Jesus? As this miracle is borne out of circumstance, does Jesus intend symbolic meaning in its implementation?
<p>In utilizing the stone jars, Jesus uses a “weapon of opportunity” (John 2:6). He does not simply produce wine out of thin air, an <i>ex nihilo</i> creation as in the creation of the world (Genesis 1:1-31). Instead, he takes what is there and works with it.
<p>In doing this, Jesus transforms not only the contents of the water pots but also the purpose of the receptacles themselves. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) contemplates:
<blockquote>The six stone jars which he uses had once been used for another form of re-freshment—Jewish purification [John 2:6]. In other words, for the cleansing of faults and impurities (John 2:6). Cleansing is no mean achievement, but it tends to focus on the negative. Jesus, is offering something that is overwhelmingly positive. (Brodie, <i>The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary</I>, 172)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.newbigin.net/>Lesslie Newbigin</a> (1909-1998) applauds:
<blockquote>We are in the midst of an event which is under the law. Six great stone jars holding twenty to thirty gallons of water each stand there as a reminder of this fact [John 2:6]. The water is for the rites of purification required by the law—part of the whole ritual apparatus which is provided to keep Israel as a nation consecrated for the Lord in the midst of a world which is defiled by sin. Purification is a negative action. The water removes uncleanness but does not give the fulness of joy. What the law cannot supply Jesus will give—in superabundance. The action of Jesus is free, sovereign, and surpassing any mere rectification of a defect. It is the coming into experience of that which is really new—the “new wine” of the kingdom of God (Mark 2:22). It is an act of the overflowing majesty of the Creator. (Newbigin, <i>The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel</I>, 27-28)</blockquote>
This act has an effect on the way religion will be experienced. <a href=http://www.wm.edu/as/religiousstudies/faculty/daise_m.php>Michael A. Daise (b. 1956)</a> analyzes:
<blockquote>During the wedding at Cana, the empty stone jars at John 2:6-7 show ritual purity at that juncture to be the result of a physical rite effected by water. But, by Jesus’ vine and branches metaphor in the Farewell Discourse, “cleanness” has become the result of a verbal act effected by Jesus’ speech – “You are already clean, because of the word which I have spoken to you” (John 15:3)...The dynamic in question may be what Catherine Bell [1953-2008] labels “<i>ritual transformation</I>”: not the creation of new rites <i>ex nihilo</I> (which Bell dubs “ritual invention” ), but the modification of traditional rites into new forms and aims. Applied to the Fourth Gospel, it seems that, in the liminal period that occurs between the first Passover, when the Jesus’ ‘hour’ is introduced [John 2:4, 4:21, 23, 5:25, 28, 7:30, 8:20], and the last Passover, when it arrives, Jewish rituals are being gradually transformed into metaphorized counterparts; and these, in turn, form the framework for a new, distinctly Johannine (ritual) system. (Daise, <i>Feasts in John: Jewish Festivals and Jesus’ “Hour” in the Fourth Gospel</I>, 174)</blockquote>
Jesus is a game changer on many fronts. In this instance, he begins to shift the way that religion is performed. In this regard, the method Jesus uses to change water into wine not only indicates who he is but what he has come to do. It is a fitting first sign (John 2:11).
<p>Why does Jesus use this particular methodology when changing water into wine (John 2:6-10)? Why did Jesus not simply make the wine materialize or reuse the receptacles from the first batch of wine? What does it say of Jesus that he uses what is there as opposed to discarding it and creating something new? Would you rather fix something broken or simply replace it? When has an action epitomized the values of its actor?
<blockquote>“In the Talmud, it is specified how much water is needed for the rites of purification. Only about a cup of water was necessary to purify a hundred men. But here, in this story, there is well over a hundred gallons of water! That is enough water to purify the entire world!...Get it? Jesus is that purifying water which is available in enough quantity for the whole world.” - <a href=https://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/william-willimon>William H. Willimon</a> (b. 1946), <a href=http://www.chapel.duke.edu/worship/sunday/viewsermon.aspx?id=93>“Some Saw Glory”</a>, unpublished sermon preached January 18, 1998, at the <a href=http://chapel.duke.edu/>Duke University Chapel</a></blockquote>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-52848960544479267072014-06-09T15:00:00.000-07:002014-06-09T15:00:00.856-07:00Elisheba: The Priest’s Wife (Exodus 6:23)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qI6px5S_5wU/U5T77TuCD-I/AAAAAAAAI3M/exon8-jYzBc/s1600/ElizabethTaylorMarriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qI6px5S_5wU/U5T77TuCD-I/AAAAAAAAI3M/exon8-jYzBc/s320/ElizabethTaylorMarriage.jpg" /></a></div><b>Who was Aaron’s wife? Elisheba</b>
<p>Exodus interrupts its narrative to supply a genealogy of the heads of the first three tribes of Israel (Exodus 6:14-27). The list naturally focuses on the tribe of Levi, the clan of its leaders, Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:16-27). Amid this context, Aaron’s wife, Elisheba, makes her only biblical appearance (Exodus 6:23).
<blockquote>Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. (Exodus 6:23 NASB)</blockquote>
Elisheba is obscure. She appears only in this genealogy and nothing is said of her apart from her family ties. <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/pamela-l-mcquade/4b/48b/1a8>Pamela L. McQuade</a> (b. 1953) acclimates:
<blockquote>Aaron’s wife doesn’t get a lot of press in the Bible. Her brother Nahshon gets more mention as a leader of the tribe of Judah [Exodus 6:23; Numbers 1:7, 2:3, 7:12, 17, 10:14; Ruth 4:20, I Chronicles 2:10, 11; Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32], but Elisheba would have been well known to the Israelites, as wife of their high priest [Exodus 6:23]. (McQuade, <i>The Top 100 Women of the Bible: Who They Are and What They Mean to You Today</I>, 47)</blockquote>
Some have attempted to fill this void in Elisheba’s story. One strand of Jewish tradition claims that she served as one of the midwives who protected Hebrew babies in Exodus’ opening chapter. (Exodus 1:15-21).
<p><a href=http://www.rel.tcu.edu/faculty_langston.asp>Scott M. Langston</a> (b. 1960) researches:
<blockquote>Were the “midwives of the Hebrews” Egyptians or Hebrews? In the Septuagint, as in Josephus [37-100], they were Egyptians. In the Talmud, however, they were Jewish. One Talmudic tradition, also followed by <i>Targum Neofiti I</I> and <i>Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</I>, identified Shiphrah as Jocheved, Moses’ mother, and Puah as Miriam, his sister. The other understood the midwives to be Jocheved and Elisheba, the wife of Aaron (<i>b. Sotah</I> 11b). <i>Exodus Rabbah</I> agreed that they were Hebrew and recorded numerous explanations of their names. Their ethnicity made a difference in the story. As Egyptians, they exemplified God’s ability to use non-Hebrews to achieve his purposes. As Hebrews, they became symbols of the national struggle for freedom. (Langston, <i>Exodus Through the Centuries</I>, 18)</blockquote>
Some scholars have supplied Elisheba a voice. <a href=http://www.brandeis.edu/wsrc/scholars/profiles/adelman.html>Penina Adelman</a> (b. 1953) apprises:
<blockquote>Very little has been written about Elisheba. Ellen Frankel [b. 1951], author of <i>The Five Books of Miriam</I> (<a href=http://www1.nyc.gov/>New York</a>: <a href=http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/gpputnamssons/>G.P. Putnam’s Sons</a>, 1996), pages 159-61, responds to this void by letting Elisheba speak in her own voice...<a href=http://rabbijillhammer.com/>Jill Hammer</a> [b. 1969] has responded to the lack of material on Elisheba with a midrash of her own, which also portrays Elisheba in her midwife guise. It is called “The Tenth Plague” and can be found in the midrash collection <i>Sisters at Sinai: New Tales of Biblical Women</I> (<a href=http://www.phila.gov/>Philadelphia</a>: <a href=http://www.jewishpub.org/>The Jewish Publication Society</A>, 2004), pages 105-113. (Adelman, “Elisheba”, <i>Praise Her Works: Conversations with Biblical Women</I>, 138-39)</blockquote>
Elisheba is the only person who carries this name in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 6:23). Though uncommon in the modern era, the name did briefly make its way into the mainstream when actress <a href=http://elizabethtaylor.com/>Elizabeth Taylor</a> (1932-2011) adopted it upon her conversion to Judaism in 1959.
<p><a href=http://history.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/propp-william.html>William H.C. Propp</a> (b. 1957) studies:
<blockquote><i>Ĕlîšeba‘</I> seems to mean “My god is Seven” (cf. the names <i>batšeba‘</I> ‘Seven’s daughter,’ <I>yehôšeba‘</i>/<i>yehôšab‘at</I> ‘Yahweh is Seven,’ <i>be’ēršeba‘</I> ‘Seven’s well’ and <i>šeba‘</I> ‘Seven’; compare to the Byblian king Sibitti-běl ‘Baal is Seven’ mentioned in inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III [<i>Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament</I> 282, 283]). Is <i>šeba‘</I> an Israelite manifestation of the Mesopotamian god/gods/demons Sebettu ‘the Seven,’ on whom see D.O. Edzard [1930-2004] (1965:124-25)? For other etymologies see Samuel E. Loewenstamm [1907-1987] (1950). (Propp, <i>Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 279)</blockquote>
Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) informs:
<blockquote>The name <i>’élîśeba’</I> (Elisheba) is the Hebrew form of “Elizabeth”. What “Elizabeth” means is debatable, but two possibilities are “My God is the One by whom to swear” or “My God is Seven.” (Hamilton, <i>Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary</I>, 106)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/>Craig A. Evans</a> (b. 1952) connects:
<blockquote>According to Luke, the mother of John the Baptist and wife of Zechariah the priest is Elizabeth (Luke 1:5). The name Elizabeth is a variant of the biblical name Elisheba (אלישבע), the wife of Aaron (cf. Exodus 6:23), which in the Septuagint is Έλισάβεθ. The Greek form Έλισάβη appears on an ossuary from Silwan, Jerualem (cf. Hans Henry Spoer [1873-1951] 1907; Samuel Klein [1886-1940] and Jean-Baptiste Frey [1878-1939] no. 1338). (Evans, <i>Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity</I>, 82)</blockquote>
The fact that Elisheba is named is significant in and of itself as Exodus seldom identifies women by name. <a href=http://religiousstudies.duke.edu/people?Gurl=/aas/Religion&Uil=carol&subpage=profile>Carol Meyers</a> (b. 1942) notes:
<blockquote>Only six women (Elisheba [Exodus 6:23], Jochebed [Exodus 6:20], Miriam [Exodus 15:20, 21], Puah [Exodus 1:15], Shiphrah [Exodus 1:15], and Zippporah [Exodus 2:21, 4:25, 18:2]) are mentioned by name in the book of Exodus. But many more are referred to in the narratives, especially in chapters 1-3 [Exodus 1:1-3:22]; and generic women are mentioned in the Decalogue and community regulations of chapters 20-23 [Exodus 20:1-23:33]. (Meyers, <i>Exodus (New Cambridge Bible Commentary)</I>, 25)</blockquote>
It is worth noting that Moses’ wife and sister are unnamed in this genealogy while Elisheba is.
<p>It is also rare for women to be mentioned in genealogies. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) comments:
<blockquote>Unlike most genealogies in Scripture or elsewhere, it [Exodus 6:14-27] includes the names of women (Matthew 1:1-17 is another exception to the rule); Jochebed [Exodus 6:20], Elisheba [Exodus 6:23], an anonymous daughter of Putiel (wife of Eleazar, Aaron’s daughter-in-law, Phinehas’s mother) [Exodus 6:25], and Miriam in Exodus 6:20 if we follow the reading of the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. What makes the presence of these women so unique here is that this genealogy is about who has the proper bloodlines to serve as high priest or just as priest, an office restricted by sex to males. There are no “priestesses” in the Old Testament. (Hamilton, <i>Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary</I>, 108)</blockquote>
Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) analyzes:
<blockquote>She [Elisheba] never appears in any story, and the mention of her name in this brief genealogy must be related to the purpose of this family listing. Such listings don’t ordinarily include female ancestors. This genealogy foregrounds Moses and Aaron, and the addition of named women to their family tree — Moses’ mother Jochebed [Exodus 6:20] as well as Elisheba [Exodus 6:23] — perhaps contributes to the prominence of their lineage. Moreover, the inclusion of a mother’s name indicates how significant these women were to the destiny of their children. (<a href=http://religiousstudies.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1699&subpage=profile>Carol L. Meyers</a> [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944], <a href=https://vivo.brown.edu/display/rkraemer>Ross Shepard Kraemer</a> [b. 1948], “Elisheba”, <i>Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and New Testament</I>, 73)</blockquote>
Elisheba is the wife of Aaron, the high priest (Exodus 6:23). There is either a significant difference in age between Elisheba and her husband or there is a gap in the genealogy.
<p><a href=http://history.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/propp-william.html>William H.C. Propp</a> (b. 1957) relays:
<blockquote>Heinrich Holzinger [1863-1944] (1900:20) observes that Aaron may be considerably older than his wife. He is of the fourth generation from Jacob, she of the sixth. (Propp, <i>Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 279)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.yale.edu/divinity/news/070625_news_childs.shtml>Brevard S. Childs</a> (1923-2007) counters:
<blockquote>The principle of selectivity is...clear in comparing other genealogies within the Old Testament. So, for example, according to Exodus 6, Aaron and Moses belong to the fourth generation after Jacob, whereas from the lists in Ruth 4:18-20 and I Chronicles 2:4-10, it would appear that Aaron’s wife Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, belonged to the sixth generation. (Childs, <i>The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 117)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gordonconwell.edu/academics/view-faculty-member.cfm?faculty_id=15891&grp_id=8946>Douglas K. Stuart</a> (b. 1943) concurs:
<blockquote>Moses’ listing of his and Aaron’s ancestry has, typically, gaps. It mentions Moses and Aaron in the fourth generation after Jacob, although Aaron’s wife Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) seems to fit in the sixth generation after Jacob according to the data lists in I Chronicles 2:4-10 and Ruth 4:18-20. By mentioning only the generations of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron/Moses (Exodus 6:16-20), it could seem to give the impression that there were in fact only four generations from the entrance into Egypt until the exodus—a period of 430 years (cf. Exodus 12:20). This is theoretically possible in light of the long lives of Levi, Kohath, and Amram and the fact that Moses was eighty when the exodus began, but it would require that each father in this group had the son named in this group at about age one hundred. (Stuart, <i>Exodus (New American Commentary)</I>, 176)</blockquote>
Though relatively inconsequential within the confines of the Bible, Elisheba was likely eminent during her own lifetime as she was a prominent member of Israel’s first family.
<p><a href=http://www.bidmc.org/CentersandDepartments/Departments/Radiology/Data/ClinicalFaculty/Musculoskeletal/RonaldEisenberg.aspx>Ronald L. Eisenberg</a> (b. 1945) educates:
<blockquote>The Talmud notes that “Elisheba had five joys more than the daughters of Israel” on the day the Tabernacle was dedicated. “Her brother-in-law [Moses] was a king, her husband [Aaron] was a high priest, her son [Eleazar] was <i>segan</I> [deputy high priest], her grandson [Pinchas] was anointed [as deputy high priest to lead the army for battle], and her brother [Nachshon] was the prince of his tribe; yet she mourned her two sons [Nadab and Abihu]” (Zevachim 102a). (Eisengberg, <i>Essential Figures in the Bible</I>, 62)</blockquote>
Midrash has also attached Elisheba with Proverbs’ description of the ideal woman (Proverbs 31:25). <a href=http://hebrew.wisc.edu/?q=node/19>Michael V. Fox</a> (b. 1940) edifies:
<blockquote><i>Yalqut Shimoni</i>...assembles midrashic comments that identify the Woman of Strength [Proverbs 31:10-31] with Sarah...Memories of other women are evoked as well. “Strength and majesty are her raiment” (Proverbs 31:25a) was associated with Elisheba daughter of Amminadab (Exodus 6:23), and “She opens her mouth in wisdom” (Proverbs 31:26a) brought to mind the wise woman who spoke with Joab (II Samuel 14:2). These and similar associations were not meant to be exclusive identifications but to point to women who exemplify the qualities described in this poem. (Fox, <i>Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 906)</blockquote>
Elisheba’s presence within Exodus’ genealogy gives credibility to her family’s position. <a href=https://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/Scholz>Susanne Scholz</a> (b. 1966) discusses:
<blockquote>An extensive genealogy interrupts the events. Strengthening the authority of Moses (Exodus 6:14-25), the list legitimates him as the leader of the people of Israel. The passage includes his male and a few female ancestors. The women are characterized as daughters, wives and mothers...Women are significant only in their relationship to men (cf. Exodus 1:27-:20). Jochebed, the mother of Moses, is named (Exodus 6:20) but not Moses’ sister and wife. Instead, Aaron’s wife Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) and the daughters of Putiel are listed. One of the daughters marries Eleazar and gives birth to a son (Exodus 6:25). (<a href=http://www.uva.nl/over-de-uva/organisatie/medewerkers/content/b/r/a.brenner/a.brenner.html>Athalya Brenner</a> [b. 1943], “The Complexities of ‘His’ Liberation Talk: A Literary Feminist Reading of the Book of Exodus”, <i>A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy</I>, 30)</blockquote>
In addition to Moses, the genealogy also bolsters his descendants, who likely need the credibility more than he. <a href=http://united.edu/portfolio-item/thomas-dozeman/>Thomas B. Dozeman</a> (b. 1952) concludes:
<blockquote>The structure indicates the important position of Phinehas [Exodus 6:25]. He is the only character named in the sixth generation of descendants from Levi. Additional information provided by the P author further accentuates his position. The P author provides the age of three characters, Levi (137 years) [Exodus 6:16], Kohath (133 years) [Exodus 6:18], and Amram (137 years) [Exodus 6:20], emphasizing the ancestry of Aaron. Then, beginning with the father of Aaron, Amram, the P author also includes the name of the wife: Amram married Jochebed, his father’s sister [Exodus 6:20]; Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, and the sister of Nashshon [Exodus 6:23]; and Eleazar married one of the daughters of Putiel [Exodus 6:25]. The recording of the mothers further accentuates the status of Phinehas. (Dozeman, <i>Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary)</I>, 172)</blockquote>
Exodus’ genealogy serves to bolster the credibility of the priestly line and Elisheba’s inclusion assists in accomplishing this objective (Exodus 6:14-27). Her children, introduced with her (Exodus 6:23), will later play prominent roles. Eleazar will become the nation’s high priest (Numbers 20:23-29) making Elisheba both the wife and the mother of a high priest. From this one reference, it is clear that Elisheba is deemed a great success, a woman many likely aspired to be (Exodus 6:23).
<p>Why is Elisheba named in Exodus’ genealogy when so few women are (Exodus 6:23)? Were you documented as merely a name in your family’s genealogy what could be said of you? Who benefits more from this genealogy, its early or later entries? How important are bloodlines to clergy? What are the advantages and disadvantages to being a second generation minister? Do you add credibility to your relatives and associates?
<p>Elisheba is presented as the wife of the high priest, Aaron (Exodus 6:23). This relationship is accentuated given its connection to a remark made by God earlier in the chapter (Exodus 6:7). <a href=http://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-staff/bruce-wells-phd>Bruce Wells</a> (b. 1968) correlates:
<blockquote><b>Take you as my own people</b> (Exodus 6:7)...Literally the statement is, “I take [<i>lāqah</I>] you to myself as a people.” The forming of a marriage relationship is also expressed in this way: “Aaron took [<i>lāqah</I>] ...to himself as a wife” (literal translation Exodus 6:23). (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton>John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 185)</blockquote>
This type of connection is rare in the Old Testament. <a href=http://exodusfoundation.org/sample-page/about-the-founder/>Madeline Gay McClenney-Sadler</a> (b. 1967) assesses:
<blockquote>There are only seven marriages in the Pentateuch which provide sufficient kinship information about each character to suggest a preferred marriage form: Milcah–Nahor (Genesis 11:29); Sarah–Abraham (Genesis 12:13, 20:12); Rebekah-Isaac (Genesis 24:4); Mahalath-Esau (Genesis 28:9); Leah–Jacob–Rachel (Genesis 29:30); Aaron–Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) and Amram–Jochebed (Exodus 6:20). (McClenney-Sadler, <i>Re-covering the Daughter’s Nakedness: A Formal Analysis of Israelite Kinship Terminology and the Internal Logic of Leviticus 18</I>, 57)</blockquote>
Given its structure, some have seen practical marriage advice implicit in the genealogy. <a href=http://www.bidmc.org/CentersandDepartments/Departments/Radiology/Data/ClinicalFaculty/Musculoskeletal/RonaldEisenberg.aspx>Ronald L. Eisenberg</a> (b. 1945) informs
<blockquote>The biblical text describes Elisheba as the daughter of Amminadab and the sister of Nachshon (Exodus 6:23). Because the second relationship would seem to be obvious from the first, Rava [280-352] inferred an underlying teaching: “A man who [wishes] to take a wife should inquire about [the character of] her brothers” (Bava Batra 110a), because “most children resemble the brothers of the mother” (Sopherim 15:20). (Eisengberg, <i>Essential Figures in the Bible</I>, 62)</blockquote>
<a href=http://kabbalah.com/yehuda-berg>Yehuda Berg</a> (b. 1972) applies:
<blockquote>In an apparent non sequitur, the verse mentions that Elisheva was Nahshon’s sister [Exodus 6:23]. This is important later, Nahshon, who will be one of the foremost tribal princes, will also be the first person to enter the Red Sea when it parts. But there is also a relevant lesson here for us today. Whenever we are considering entering into a relationship, we must take into account the other person’s family because they are the people who have shaped our partner’s concept of the world. (Berg, <i>Exodus (Kabbalistic Bible)</I>, 62)</blockquote>
Unlike his brother Moses (Exodus 2:16-22, Numbers 12:1), Aaron marries a fellow Hebrew. But he does not marry someone from his own tribe of Levi. The marriage between Aaron and Elisheba unites two of Israel’s most prominent tribes, Judah and Levi.
<p><a href=http://history.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/propp-william.html>William H.C. Propp</a> (b. 1957) relates:
<blockquote>Eliheba is identified by both father and brother because these were an unmarried woman’s primary guardians, and perhaps because, in cases of polgyny, naming a brother in effect identified a woman’s mother. In light of the emphasis on Moses’ and Aaron’s pure Levitic ancestry, it is surprising that Aaron should marry a Judahite (cf. Numbers 1:7, etc.). But Elisheba is the daughter and sister of David’s ancestors Amminadad and Nahshon (Ruth 4:20-22; I Chronicles 2:10-15). The tradition may reflect close ties between the royal house of David and the Jerusalem priesthood (<a href=http://richardelliottfriedman.com/>Richard Elliott Friedman</a> [b. 1946] 1987:213). (Propp, <i>Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 279)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gspclaw.com/about-us/michele-clark-jenkins/>Michele Clark Jenkins</a> (b. 1954) pronounces:
<blockquote>Elisheba is mentioned in Scripture to tell of the marriage union of the Levites with the tribe of Judah. Her husband, Aaron, was a Levitical priest. The priests could not inherit nor leave an inheritance. However, Levites could intermarry with women from other tribes because there would be no confusion regarding inheritances, particularly the allocation of land that God had made to each tribe. (Jenkins, <i>She Speaks: Wisdom From the Women of the Bible to the Modern Black Woman</I>, 63)</blockquote>
Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) reviews:
<blockquote>Exodus 6:23 tell us that Aaron does not marry a fellow Levite(ss), but instead marries Elisheba/Elizabeth. Her father is Amminadab, and her brother is Nashshon (a name meaning “snakelike” [the Hebrew word <i>nāhāš</I>, “serpent/snake,” as in Genesis 3 [Genesis 3:1, 2, 4, 13, 14], and -<i>ôn</I>, a characterizing affix]). Both her father and her brother are links in the line of from Judah to David and to Jesus (Ruth 4:20; I Chronicles 2:10-11; Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32-33). Her brother, Nahshon, is the individual from the tribe of Judah who assists Moses in taking the census (Numbers 1:7). That means that the Levitical priest Aaron is married to a Judahite and that the second generation of high priests comes from mixed tribal groups, Levitical and Judahite. Thus, in the ancestry of Jesus Christ, our High Priest and King of kings, there is an interesting mixture of Levi and Judah. (Hamilton, <i>Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary</I>, 109)</blockquote>
The union of the priestly tribe of Levi with the royal tribe of Judah in the life of Aaron and Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) foreshadows their perfect union in the life of Jesus. It proves to be an unbeatable combination.
<p>Is Aaron’s and Elisheba’s union politically motivated? How important is it to be familiar with a potential spouse’s family before consenting to marriage? Where else do the roles of king and priest overlap? When have two famous families merged? When have you seen a marriage in which the whole was greater than the sum of its parts? What is the most effective combination of people or things of which you are aware?
<p>“Love is a partnership of two unique people who bring out the very best in each other, and who know that even though they are wonderful as individuals, they are even better together.” - <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/barbara-cage/7/5a7/235>Barbara Cage</a>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-18165119123547815232014-06-06T15:00:00.000-07:002014-06-06T15:00:01.655-07:00Meet Me in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-56weoznLHqo/U43prF1q9QI/AAAAAAAAI28/uYwlsHoFZ3I/s1600/TitusIcon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-56weoznLHqo/U43prF1q9QI/AAAAAAAAI28/uYwlsHoFZ3I/s320/TitusIcon.jpg" /></a></div><b>Where did Paul hope to spend the winter if he was released from the Roman prison? Nicopolis (Titus 3:12)</b>
<p>Titus is a letter from Paul to the epistle’s namesake, his protégé, Titus (Titus 1:1-4). As such it is commonly categorized (along with the letters to Timothy) as a Pastoral Epistle. Following the standard epistolary format of the era, Paul closes with personal concerns (Titus 3:12-15). He begins these remarks by expressing his desire to rendezvous with Titus in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12).
<blockquote>When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, make every effort to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there. (Titus 3:12 NASB)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.facebook.com/clyde.fant>Clyde E. Fant</a> (b. 1934) and <a href=http://www.stetson.edu/other/faculty/profiles/mitchell-reddish.php>Mitchell G. Reddish</a> (b. 1953) assess:
<blockquote>In many ways, this is a curious text. Nowhere is any previous contact by Paul with Nicopolis mentioned in the New Testament, nor is there any reference to any church at Nicopolis or, indeed, anywhere west of the heavily populated eastern coastline of Greece. On the other hand, Paul’s mission strategy seems to have been to plant churches in newer, vigorous, Romanized cities in strategic trade areas. (A more traditional, older Greek city such as Athens, for example, seems to have received less attention, and no church at Athens is ever mentioned in the New Testament.) Probably the greater openness and dynamism of such cities coupled with the greater likelihood of a new movement spreading from these more cosmopolitan places, influenced his thinking. (Fant and Reddish, <i>A Guide to Biblical Sites in Greece and Turkey</I>, 87-88)</blockquote>
Much like concluding contemporary communication with “(hope to) see you soon!”, ending with a travel itinerary is customary in New Testament epistles. <A HREF=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83407>W. Hulitt Gloer</a> (b. 1950) and <A HREF=https://www.facebook.com/plstepp>Perry L. Stepp</a> (b. 1964) inform:
<blockquote>As in other letters, Paul’s final instructions give details about his travel plans and companions. He usually mentions his desire to visit the recipients (Romans 1:11, 15:22-24, 28-29; I Corinthians 11:34; II Corinthians 1:15-16, 12:20-21, 13:10; Philippians 2:24; I Thessalonians 2:17-18; Philemon 1:22) and occasionally gives specific details of his travel plans (Romans 15:22-29; I Corinthians 16:5-9). His instructions to Titus here are in keeping with his practice of sending trusted coworkers to act in his stead when he is not able to visit. (Gloer and Stepp, <i>Reading Paul’s Letters to Individuals: A Literary and Theological Commentary on Paul’s Letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy</I>, 123)</blockquote>
Paul plans to spend the winter in Nicopolis and the Greek text demonstrates that his decision is final (Titus 3:12). <a href=http://www.gpts.edu/faculty/george_knight.php>George W. Knight III</a> (b. 1931) explains:
<blockquote>Titus is to come “because” (γάρ) Paul “has decided” (κέκρικα, from κρίνω) “to winter there,” the perfect tense expressing a settled decision. The infinitive παραχειμασαι with ἐκεί, “to spend the winter” “there,” indicates the decision that Paul has reached. (Knight, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 357)</blockquote>
Paul instructs Titus to do everything within his power to make an appearance in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). <a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff>Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) explicates:
<blockquote>Once relief had arrived, Titus was to travel to Nicopolis to be with Paul for the winter. The language of this instruction is identical to that given to Timothy in II Timothy 4:9: “Do your best to [hurry/hasten to] come to me.” The versions opt for the sense of determination (II Timothy 2:15) rather than for speed (II Timothy 4:21), but the time frame probably suggests that, once relieved, Titus is to make his move without delay. (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 800)</blockquote>
The ministers are to meet in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). The name of this destination appears only here in the New Testament. <a href=http://www.gpts.edu/faculty/george_knight.php>George W. Knight III</a> (b. 1931) investigates:
<blockquote>Paul wants Titus to join him at Νικόπολις (a New Testament hapax; see <a href=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/retired/james-houston>James M. Houston</a> [b. 1922], <i>Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible</I> IV, 436; <a href=http://enet.cn.edu/profiles/Borchert.pdf>Gerald L. Borchert</a> [b. 1932], <I>International Standard Bible Encyclopedia</i> III, 534f.). Although several places were known by that name (see Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], <i>Introduction to the New Testament</I> II, §35, n. 3), the capital of Epirus best fits the time framework of the letter and the reference in II Timothy 4:10 to Titus being in Dalmatia, which was just up the coast from Epirus. Nicopolis was on the coast of Greece about two hundred miles northwest of Athens on the gulf of Ambracia (now known as Arta) near the Adriatic Sea (cf. Strabo [64 BCE=24 CE] 7.7.5. It was founded and named by Augustus [63 BCE-14 CE] in 31 BC and established as a Roman colony (cf. Dio Cassius [155-235] 51.1; Strabo [64 BCE-24 CE] 7.7.5). (Knight, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 356-57)</blockquote>
The name Nicopolis was common in the era. <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/>William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) surveys:
<blockquote>There were seven cities with the name Nicopolis in the ancient world (see Ceslas Spicq [1901-1992], 2:690-91). Most agree that Paul refers to the Nicopolis in Epirus on the western coast of Achaia on the Ambracian Gulf off the Adriatic Sea. It was two hundred miles northwest of Athens and was the largest city on the coast. It was two hundred miles across the sea from Brindisi, Italy, from which the Via Appia went to Rome. It was also a stopping place for north-south travel. It had better weather than the Nicopolis in Cilicia (J.N.D. Kelly [1909-1997], 257; the Nicopolis in Thrace was north of Philippi)...This Nicopolis was established by Augustus [63 BCE-14 CE] on his campsite after his defeat of Mark Anthony [83-30 BCE] at Actium in 31 B.C. <i>Nicopolis</I> means “city of victory” (νίκη, “victory” + πόλις, “city”), which explains its popularity as a city name. This Nicopolis was an ideal location for Paul to continue meeting people and spreading the gospel. Its location west of the lands Paul had evangelized may signal his intention to travel west, perhaps to Spain. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 457-58)</blockquote>
Though the city was relatively new, it had gained prominence. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) educates:
<blockquote>Known as Nicopolos in Epirus (see Tacitus [56-117], <i>Anallas</I> 2.53 or Nicopolis of Achaia (see Ptolemy [90-168], <i>Geography</I> 3.13), the city was a natural site for maritime transportation between Achaia and Italy. As the terminus of a trade route, it became an important commercial center and the site of the quadrennial athletic games. Epictetus [55-135], the Stoic philosopher, arrived in the city as an exile in 89 C.E. (see Gellius [125-180], <i>Attic Nights</I> 15.11.5)...This port city was a natural place for a person to pass the winter were he or she intending to take a sea voyage in the early spring when travel conditions became less treacherous than they would be in winter (see I Corinthians 16:6; Acts 27:9-12). The Achaian port is probably the city that the Pastor had in mind when he composed Titus 3:12. (Collins, <i>I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</I>, 371-72)</blockquote>
The route corresponds with other Pauline references to travel. <a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff>Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) connects:
<blockquote>The location corresponds to Paul’s statement about the extent of his ministry (as far as Illyricum [Romans 5:19], which was to the north of Epirus), as well as the later note that Titus was in Dalmatia (II Timothy 4:10). (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 800)</blockquote>
<a href=http://faculty.smu.edu/jbassler/>Jouette M. Bassler</a> (b. 1942) concurs:
<blockquote>There were a number of cities in the ancient world named Nicopolis (“Victory City”). It is likely that the author had in mind the Nicopolis on the western coast of Greece. It lay close to Paul’s known travel circuit, though there is no other evidence that he ever visited that city. It was, however, customary to avoid sea travel in the winter, when seasonal storms made sailing particularly dangerous (Acts 27:12, 28:11; II Timothy 4:21). (Bassler, <i>1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 213)</blockquote>
There is no confirmation that Titus meets his mentor or even whether Paul makes it to Nicopolis as planned. But there can be no doubt that Paul desires a reunion. He wants to see Titus in the flesh, not merely correspond in writing. Letters (and virtual communication in general) are blesings but there is no substitute for a face to face encounter.
<p>Why does Paul desire to see Titus so resolutely? Is the visit more for Paul or Titus? Is this trip for business or pleasure? Or both? What are the advantages of face to face meetings over written or virtual correspondence? With the rise of social networking, which mode of communication do you utilize more; which do you prefer? Has social networking changed the way that we communicate?
<p>The city of Nicopolis has become formally attached to the epistle in some strands of the Christian tradition. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) reveals:
<blockquote>A codicil to the epistle of Titus, first appearing in the sixth-century Codex Coislinianus (H), says that the epistle “was written by Paul the apostle to Titus, the first bishop of the Church of the Cretans upon whom hands had been laid, from Nicoplis to Macedonia.” This note appears in most manuscripts of the Byzantine tradition. An eleventh-century minuscule (81) adds to the epistle an alternative form of the note: “Written to Titus from Nicopolis in Crete.” Two earlier manuscripts, the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and the ninth-century Codex Porphyrianus, append a simple notation, “written from Nicoplis.” (Collins, <i>I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</I>, 372)</blockquote>
The subscription is inaccurate as Paul indicates that he has not yet reached Nicopolis. <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/>William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) corrects:
<blockquote>By saying that he had decided to winter ἐκει, “there,” and not ὠδε, “here.” Paul implies that he was not yet in Nicopolis. If Paul was making plans for winter, this might suggest he was writing in midsummer, allowing Titus sufficient time to travel from Crete to Nicopolis. It might also suggest that he currently was somewhere in Achaia or Macedonia. But anything beyond this is overly speculative. Subscriptions of some manuscripts to both I Timothy and Titus incorrectly identify Nicopolis as the location of writing. (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 458)</blockquote>
<a href=http://nsts.fusp.it/about-nsts/staff>Philip H. Towner</a> (b. 1953) supports:
<blockquote>At the time of writing, Paul had not yet reached Nicopolis (“I have decided to winter <i>there</I> [Titus 3:12]”). And we are to assume that decisions about his future plans made this busy port town (known for harsh winters) a strategic spot to spend the winter. The size of the town would have afforded sufficient ministry opportunities among those who were similarly laid up until the passing of the winter months opened up sea travel again. But what Paul had in mind for Titus is not divulged. Presumably, he was to assume another such posting or to assist Paul directly. In either case, the time left to Titus in Crete was apparently sufficient for him to accomplish his duties (Titus 1:5; etc.); once his replacement came, however, he had (because of the onset of winter?) to make his way to Nicopolis with speed. (Towner, <i>The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 800-01)</blockquote>
This note on planning sheds light on the situation in which the letter was written (Titus 3:12). <a href=http://www.billmounce.com/>William D. Mounce</a> (b. 1953) reconstructs:
<blockquote>This is an important verse in ascertaining the situation of the epistle...The epistle...except for the salutation and conclusion (and Titus 2:7-8)...is quite impersonal, containing few personal remarks to Titus such as are found in I Timothy (especially I Timothy 4:6-16) and throughout II Timothy. Now the situation becomes clear. Titus was left in Crete with the task of setting things right (Titus 1:5). After an undeterminable span of time, Zenas and Apollos (Titus 3:13) brought the letter with specific instructions for the Cretan church, and soon after that Titus was replaced by either Artemas or Tychicus. Therefore, the epistle is not so much for Titus as it is for the church. There is no contradiction between Titus 1:5 and Titus 3:5 (contra Victor Hasler [1920-2003], A.T. Hanson [1916-1991]). (Mounce, <i>Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 457)</blockquote>
Robert L. Cate (b. 1932) speculates:
<blockquote>The only reason for Paul’s being at Nicopolis would be if he were on his way to Philippi but had refrained from crossing the intervening mountains during the winter season. (Cate, <i>One Untimely Born: The Life and Ministry of the Apostle Paul</I>, 130)</blockquote>
Given the time of year of the reunion, meeting in Nicopolis is advantageous. Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. (b. 1947) infers:
<blockquote>His assertion “I have decided to winter there” [Titus 3:12] reveals that he was a free man, not imprisoned as he wrote. Concerning Paul’s intention to winter in Nicopolis, C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] observes: “It would be natural for Paul to confine his longer journeys to the summer, and to use the winter to consolidate work in an important centre; but it must be admitted that we have no definite evidence to prove that this was his regular practice, and II Corinthians 11:25f suggests that he took risks. (Thomas D. Lea [1938-1999] and Griffin, <i>1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary)</i>, 331-32)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gpts.edu/faculty/george_knight.php>George W. Knight III</a> (b. 1931) adds:
<blockquote>Travel on the sea was difficult or impossible during the winter (cf. II Timothy 4:21), and Paul’s experiences (Acts 27:12, 28:11) made him keenly aware of the need to make plans for the season. Use of παραχειμαζω by Paul or in connection with Paul [Acts 27:12, 28:11; I Corinthians 16:6; Titus 3:12] shows that he sought to spend his winters with Christians in strategic locations for gospel ministry. His choice of Nicopolis put him and Titus one step further west of the area where most of his labors had been concentrated and was most likely taken with a view to fulfilling his desire to go where the gospel had not been preached and, ultimately, to Spain (cf. Romans 15:20-24). (Knight, <i>The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 357)</blockquote>
Paul is acting almost like a bishop, dictating the trajectory of Titus’ ministry. Doing so in the letter to Titus provides a rare glimpse into the apostle’s planning (Titus 3:12). Though he travels frequently, Paul’s mission is not haphazard. It is judicious and planned in advance.
<p>What are the advantages to selecting Nicopolis for a winter summit? Where would you most like to spend the winter? How much planning do you feel went into Paul’s ministry? How much planning goes into your church’s ministry? How far in advance does Paul plan? How far in advance should plans be made? How important is planning to success?
<p>“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”- <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/dwightdeisenhower>Dwight D. Eisenhower</a> (1890-1969)Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-76002485343043586652014-05-22T15:00:00.000-07:002014-05-22T15:00:04.634-07:00King Solomon’s Wives (I Kings 11:3)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vJC8cWPfiEM/U3zXCRu7FgI/AAAAAAAAI2o/RMKYGTdb8pc/s1600/SolomonsWives.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150.667" width="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vJC8cWPfiEM/U3zXCRu7FgI/AAAAAAAAI2o/RMKYGTdb8pc/s320/SolomonsWives.jpg" /></a></div><b>How many wives did Solomon have? Seven hundred (I Kings 11:3)</b>
<p>Known as the wisest man on the planet (I Kings 4:30), King Solomon is a successful ruler. The holdings of Israel’s kingdom reach their apex during his reign (I Kings 10:14-29). The modern adage “Go big or go home” would have been an apt motto for the ancient monarch as he seemingly accrues everything in warehouse club portions. In addition to wisdom and commodities, Solomon amasses an abundance of women: seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).
<blockquote>He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. (I Kings 11:3 NASB)</blockquote>
The number of Solomon’ wives is fantastic. <a href=http://www.newcovenantnaperville.org/About/Leadership/Douglas-O'Donnell>Douglas Sean O’Donnell</a> (b. 1972) relays:
<blockquote>In <a href=http://www.cmgww.com/historic/twain/about/bio.htm>Mark Twain</a> [1835-1910]’s <i>The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn</I>, Huck says to Jim that Solomon “had about a million wives.” A slight exaggeration—Solomon only had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He had a thousand, not a million (but still large enough!). (O’Donnell, <i>The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy (Preaching the Word)</i>, 130)</blockquote>
Not surprisingly, Solomon and his wives have become fodder for humor. <a href=http://ajjacobs.com/>A.J. Jacobs</a> (b. 1968) gibes:
<blockquote>Solomon holds the record with seven hundred wives...Solomon’s proverbs warn against adultery [Proverbs 2:16-19, 5:1-23, 6:24-29, 32, 7:5-23, 9:13-18, 22:14, 23:27, 30:20], which I find curious, since I can’t imagine he had any time or energy for other men’s wives. (Jacobs, <i>The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Possible</I>, 135)</blockquote>
<a href=http://andystanley.com/>Andy Stanley</a> (b. 1958) exclaims:
<blockquote>Seven hundred wives! Think about that. Seven hundred mothers-in-law. What was he thinking? Apparently he wasn’t. (Stanley, <i>The Principle of the Path: How to Get from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be</I>, 92)</blockquote>
The note itself falls awkwardly into the narrative as it does not fit comfortably into its present context (I Kings 11:3). <a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/percy-van-keulen/30/659/358>Percy S. F. Van Keulen</a> (b. 1963) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>The position of the note in I Kings 11:3a is awkward. Materially, this note links up with the remark of I Kings 11:1 that Solomon loved many women. Its belated appearance at I Kings 11:3a is due to the circumstance that first the issue of the alien origin of Solomon’s wives is dealt with in I Kings 11:1b and I Kings 11:2. However, at I Kings 11:3a the note interrupts the logical sequence between I Kings 11:2b and I Kings 11:3b; the latter verse notes the fulfillment of the prediction made at I Kings 11:2b that foreign nations could turn the heart of the Israelites away behind their gods. (Van Keulen, <i>Two Versions Of The Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry Into The Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11</I>, 208)</blockquote>
The Septuagint reorganizes the passage to accentuate the bevy of marriages.
<a href=http://www.cst.edu/academics/faculty/profile/marvin-sweeney/>Marvin A. Sweeney</a> (b. 1953) footnotes:
<blockquote>The Septuagint...rearranges I Kings 11:1-3 to emphasize Solomon’s many wives followed by his love for foreign women and apostasy: “And King Solomon was a lover of women. And he had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines. And he took Gentile women, and the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabites, Ammonites, Syrians, and Idumeans, Hittites and Amorites, of the nations concerning which the L-rd said to the sons of Israel ‘You shall not go into them, and they shall not come in to you, lest they turn away your hearts after their idols.’ To them, Solomon clung in love” (see Heinrich Hrozný [1879-1952], <i>Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern</i> 70-72; <a href=http://www.steyler.eu/svd/at/Provinz-OES/Lebensbilder/Vanoni-Gottfried.php>Gottfried Vanoni</a> [1948-2006] 24-57). (Sweeney, <i>I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 153)</blockquote>
Solomon is said to have seven hundred “wives” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “women” (MSG). These are distinguished from his additional three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).
<p>The sheer volume is staggering. Solomon tends to do everything extravagantly and marriage is evidently no different. He has far more wives than anyone else in the Bible.
<p>Gene Rice (b. 1925) compares:
<blockquote>As Solomon’s building program, wealth, and fame were on a grand scale, so was his harem. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines are not unprecedented [I Kings 11:3], but never before or after did an Israelite king have so many wives. The next largest harem was Rehoboam’s eighteen wives and sixty concubines (II Chronicles 11:21). David had at least eight wives (II Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13-16, 11:27; I Chronicles 3:1-9) and some ten or more concubines (II Samuel 15:16). Only one of David’s wives in known to have been a foreigner (II Samuel 13:37; I Chronicles 3:2). (Rice, <i>1 Kings: Nations Under God (International Theological Commentary)</I>, 86)</blockquote>
<a href=http://religiousstudies.stanford.edu/people/steven-p-weitzman/>Steven Weitzman</a> (b. 1965) illustrates:
<blockquote>It would seem that Solomon conducted his sex life on the same unmatchable scale that he did everything else...In fact, it is scarcely possible to conceive a sex life on this scale. In 1921 the Yiddish writer <a href=http://digifindingaids.cjh.org/?pID=1522286>David Pinski</a> [1872-1959] tried, undertaking an audacious attempt to describe all 1,000 of Solomon’s wives, but though he worked for fifteen years he managed to complete portraits of only 105; there were just too many to handle—and he was merely writing about them. Solomon seems to do everything in multiples of thousands—40,000 stalls for his horses [I Kings 4:26], 180,000 laborers to build the Temple [I Kings 5:13-16]; a sacrifice consisting of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep [I Kings 8:63; II Chronicles 7:5]—but no figure in I Kings has impressed itself on the imagination, or strains it, quite like the king’s 700 wives and 300 concubines. (Weitzman, <i>Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom</I>, 150-51)</blockquote>
Given the outlandish figure, many have seen the record as employing hyperbole. <A HREF=http://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/full-time/iain-w-provan>Iain W. Provan</A> (b. 1957) considers:
<blockquote>Not for the first time in the Solomon story (cf., e.g., I Kings 4:26), we may suspect that the number (a round 1000) is not meant to be taken literally. The point is that everything Solomon did, he did in a big way! Song of Solomon 6:8-9 contrasts the one true love of the king (Pharaoh’s daughter? cf. Victor Sasson [b.1937], “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” <a href=http://www.brill.com/vetus-testamentum><i>Vetus Testamentum</I></a> 39 [1989], pp. 407-14) with his 60 queens and 80 concubines—a more modest number, though not in itself unimpressive, particularly when combined with “virgins beyond number [Song of Solomon 6:8].” (Provan, <i>1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary)</i>, 93)</blockquote>
Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) discounts:
<blockquote>The number of Solomon’s wives is said to be one thousand; as usual, this is probably an exaggeration, and the number has no significance for the course of the narrative. It only matters that his love for the women causes Solomon’s heart to turn away from Yahweh as the only God [I Kings 11:3-8]. The Deuteronomistic Historian firmly roots Solomon’s idolatry in his biography. (Fritz, <i>1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary)</i>, 131)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.gonzaga.edu/ACADEMICS/colleges+and+schools/College-of-Arts-and-Sciences/Majors-Programs/Religious-Studies/Undergraduate-Programs/faculty.asp>Linda S. Schearing</a> (b. 1947) pronounces:
<blockquote>His alleged marriages to 700 foreign princesses...is considered historical by some in spite of I Kings 11:3’s obvious hyperbole and literary function...John Gray [1913-2000], <i>1 & 2 Kings</I>, pp. 274-75, for example, asserts that although “historical fact has been magnified and stylized” in I Kings 11:3, there is still a “historical basis” to Solomon’s diverse harem; while <a href=http://religious.gmu.edu/people/jburns>John Barclay Burns</a> [b. 1943], “Solomon’s Egyptian Horses and Exotic Wives,” <i>Foundations & Facts Forum</I> 7 (1991) 33, admits that the “exaggerated numbers of wives and concubines would not have appeared in any formal chronicle” yet goes on to argue that “nonetheless, it is conceivable that Solomon wed foreign princesses to weave a strong web of alliances.” (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “A Wealth of Women: Looking Behind, Within and Beyond Solomon’s Story”, <i>The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium</I>, 436)</blockquote>
Not all agree that the number is figurative. <a href=http://www.swbts.edu/centennial/dilday.cfm>Russell H. Dilday</a> (b. 1930) defends:
<blockquote>While the daughter of Pharaoh held a special position as the number one wife of the king, I Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon also had 699 other wives as well as 300 concubines. The fact that this number far exceeds the typical harems of other contemporary monarchs should not cause a problem with credibility, since Solomon diligently competed to exceed the other nations in every way. He had accumulated greater wealth, wisdom, and power than all others; and since virility was supposed to be an indicator of royal greatness in that day, he wanted to surpass them in this category too. Some interpreters who doubt the accuracy of the number in I Kings 11:3 point out that in the Song of Solomon 6:8 Solomon speaks of only “sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number.” But the supposed discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the “virgins without number” could have brought the total to a thousand. It can also be explained by reckoning that the number listed in the Song of Solomon may have come earlier in Solomon’s reign before he had accumulated the full number in this chapter. (Dilday, <i>1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament)</I>, 131)</blockquote>
There are parallels to Solomon’s polygamy in other cultures. <a href=http://divinity.tiu.edu/academics/faculty/john-m-monson-phd/>John Monson</a> (b. 1963) correlates:
<blockquote>In addition to being a status symbol, the royal harem maintained close ties to Solomon’s constituents through marriage into families of varying clans, tribes, and social classes, including wives of higher status who were counted among the royalty. Counting royal women by the hundreds was not unusual during the Iron Age. Assyrian wine lists from Nimrud indicate that as many as three hundred women of various ranks lived at that palace. Extensive harems produced a large pool of heirs to ensure the enduring strength of the dynasty. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton>John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 50)</blockquote>
Solomon is the poster child for polygamy. Surprisingly, polygamy is not explicitly outlawed in the Bible. The Torah does mandate that the king “shall not multiply wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17 NASB) and the rabbis capped the number of marriages at eighteen (<i>Mishnah Sanhedrin</i> 2:4). The marriages themselves, however, are not the source of Solomon’s criticism.
<p><a href=http://www.swbts.edu/centennial/dilday.cfm>Russell H. Dilday</a> (b. 1930) comments:
<blockquote>Polygamy in ancient Israel was apparently permitted, even though it obviously contradicted God’s ideal of one man for one woman for life. Most of the biblical patriarchs had numerous wives. David had fifteen. Abijah had fourteen [II Chronicles 13:21]. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, had eighteen wives and sixty concubines [II Chronicles 11:21]. So except for the unprecedented number, Solomon’s marital situation was not unusual for the historical period. (Dilday, <i>1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament)</I>, 131)</blockquote>
The harem was likely a source of pride for the king. <a href=http://religiousstudies.stanford.edu/people/steven-p-weitzman/>Steven Weitzman</a> (b. 1965) informs:
<blockquote>If the historical Solomon really did have a large harem, he was probably quite proud of it. Biblical family values allowed a man to have multiple wives and concubines (it was only in the Middle Ages that Jews embraced monogamy as the ideal), and a large family was considered a mark of virility, wealth, blessing—evidence that a man was favored by God. In the <i>Kebra Nagast</I>, the Ethiopian version of Solomon’s story, the king’s motive for marrying so many women is a pious one; he wants to fulfill God’s promise to Israel of many descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky [Genesis 15:5, 26:4; Exodus 32:13], and there seemed to him no better way to bring this about than to have sex with as many women as possible. (Weitzman, <i>Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom</I>, 151)</blockquote>
While polygamy is not expressly forbidden, intermarriage with those of other religions is (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). This tenet is also sustained in the New Testament where the apostle Paul instructs, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (II Corinthians 6:14 NASB).
<p><a href=http://religiousstudies.stanford.edu/people/steven-p-weitzman/>Steven Weitzman</a> (b. 1965) notices:
<blockquote>We are told virtually nothing about Solomon’s wives as individuals—only one is given a name, Naamah, the mother of Solomon’s successor Rehoboam, and only because she was the mother of a future king [I Kings 14:21, 31; II Chronicles 12:13]. What I Kings does make a point of revealing, however, is the ethnic background of these women—they were Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites [I Kings 11:1], non-Israelite peoples who lived within or on the borders of the land of Canaan—and that is what doomed Solomon’s marriages from the start. (Weitzman, <i>Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom</I>, 151-52)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.luthersem.edu/faculty/fac_bio.aspx?contact_id=tfrethei>Terence E. Fretheim</a> (b. 1936) adds:
<blockquote>Solomon’s many foreign wives...provide the focus for the description of his unfaithfulness (I Kings 11:1-8). But it is not Solomon’s polygamy per se that centers the account, but disloyalty to God that follows therefrom. Deuteronomic law had prohibited marriage with the peoples of Canaan because of the danger of being led astray to serve other gods (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; see Exodus 34:16; Joshua 23:12-13). Such intermarriage, in fact, had taken place early in Israel’s life in the land (Judges 3:5-6). That law, paraphrased here (I Kings 11:2), is interpreted to apply to other non-Israelite peoples as well. (Fretheim, <i>First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 63)</blockquote>
Solomon, it appears, is exercising a loophole in Deuteronomy’s prohibition (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). <a href=http://www.luthersem.edu/faculty/fac_home.aspx?contact_id=choward002>Cameron B.R. Howard</a> (b. 1980) observes:
<blockquote>Throughout Kings, the worship of foreign gods is repeatedly linked with the influence of foreign women. Solomon’s wives’ seductive powers extend outside the matrimonial realm to the religious, where they “turn his heart” to the gods of their homelands [I Kings 11:3, 4, 9]. According to I Kings 11:1, the peoples represented in Solomon’s marriages include Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites. Notably, this list does not correspond to the book of Deuteronomy’s injunction against intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:1-6), even though the narrator seems to be invoking that prohibition. <a href=http://www.cst.edu/academics/faculty/profile/marvin-sweeney/>Marvin A. Sweeney</a> [b. 1953] notes that Solomon’s list corresponds instead to alliances and conquests made by David, and that the invocation of Deuteronomic law was probably a later reaction to make Solomon’s actions fit it, rather than having composed Solomon’s list in light of the Deuteronomic prohibitions (Sweeney, 155). (<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm>Carol A. Newsom</a> [b. 1950], <a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx>Sharon H. Ringe</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1937>Jacqueline E. Lapsley</a> [b. 1965], <i>Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated</i>, 169)</blockquote>
Solomon certainly has a problem. <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/about-wheaton/leadership/president-ryken>Philip Graham Ryken</a> (b. 1966) critiques:
<blockquote>How many women did he “love” [I Kings 11:1]? At least a thousand, which was a thousand times too many! The king was living so large that even his sin was super-sized: “He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines” (I Kings 11:3). (Ryken, <i>King Solomon: The Temptations of Money, Sex, and Power</I>, 176)</blockquote>
The Message paraphrases, “King Solomon was obsessed with women.” (I Kings 11:1 MSG). <a href=http://www.scu.edu/jst/academics/faculty/hens-piazza/>Gina Hens-Piazza</a> (b. 1948) condemns:
<blockquote>The number of wives, “seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines” (I Kings 11:3), even among ancient practices and even assuming some hyperbole, is unconscionable. It bespeaks an excess of one who has lost touch with reality and with relationships. Here, no prospect of human relationship or care exists. Women have been reduced to a commodity to exchange and possess. The iteration of his love for foreign women (I Kings 11:1-2) in such numbers does not convey intimate caring but a recalcitrant attachment to these women as possession and obsession. Moreover, the unimaginable number of wives coincides with behavior patterns well established through his lifetime. Excess has defined this king’s ambitions. (Hens-Piazza, <I>1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary)</I>, 109)</blockquote>
Seven hundred wives would produce a logistical nightmare. This is seen in the fact that the wives remain nondescript, nameless and devoid of character. <a href=http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=Religion&p=/Faculty/>Stuart Lasine</a> (b. 1945) attends:
<blockquote>In spite of his thousand wives and concubines, readers do not witness any illuminating exchanges between the king and his famous loves, as one is allowed to follow David’s interactions with Michal [I Samuel 19:11-17: II Samuel 6:16, 20-23; I Chronicles 15:29], Abigail [I Samuel 25:2-42], and Bathsheba [II Samuel 11:2-27; I Kings 1:11-31]. None of Solomon’s wives is said to love him as David was loved by Michal [I Samuel 18:20]. None pursues and flatters Solomon as did David’s wife-to-be Abigail [I Samuel 25:18-35]...In fact, of Solomon’s one thousand wives and concubines only Pharaoh’s daughter receives any attention at all in I Kings 3-11, and remarkably little is said about her or about Solomon’s alleged love for her [I Kings 3:1, 7:8, 9:16, 24, 11:1]. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon and the Wizard of Oz: Power and Invisibility in a Verbal Place”, <i>The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium</I>, 379-80)</blockquote>
Sadly, it is doubtful that Solomon had much more of a relationship with his wives than does the reader.
<p>There is also implicit condemnation of Solomon’s serial polygamy. <a href=http://www.cla-srs.uottawa.ca/eng/faculty/reinhartz.html>Adele Reinhartz</a> (b. 1953) surmises:
<blockquote>The negative judgment of the narrator upon Solomon for loving foreign women, expressed explicitly in I Kings 11:1-3, is also conveyed by silence regarding the offspring of these unions. That there <i>were</I> offspring is indicated in the formulaic reference to Naamah the mother of Rehoboam (I Kings 15:21) and the naming of several daughters of Solomon who married his prefects (I Kings 4:11-15). This silence regarding Solomon’s offspring is emphasized by the reference to the son of his archenemy, King Hadad the Edomite (I Kings 11:14). In some respects, Hadad is the mirror image of Solomon. Like Solomon, he married a close relative of the Pharaoh, and an anonymous one at that (I Kings 11:19). But unlike Solomon, Hadad is portrayed as the father of a son, Genubath, borne of the Pharaoh’s sister-in-law and raised in the Pharaoh’s palace (I Kings 11:20). It is a mark of Solomon’s disgrace that his adversary is accorded the kind of conventional treatment by the narrator that Solomon himself is denied. (Reinhartz, <i>”Why Ask My Name?”: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative</i>, 26)</blockquote>
The text categorically states that “his wives turned his heart away” (I Kings 11:3 NASB). They evidently exercised more influence on him than he them.
<p>David C. Hopkins (b. 1952) accounts:
<blockquote>The narrative of Kings reports Solomon’s seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3) and suggests their influence upon their husband was both considerable and pernicious. Any influence in reverse escapes mention; the disproportionate numbers undoubtedly weighed against Solomon’s potential sway. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “The Weight of the Bronze Could Not Be Calculated: Solomon and Economic Reconstruction”, <i>The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium</I>, 301)</blockquote>
Seven hundred wives coupled with three hundred concubines is a formula for disaster. With one thousand women of varying religious affiliations it is not surprising that Solomon has divided loyalties. The text notes that the predicament finally gets the better of him in his old age, as if his senescence mitigates his fall (I Kings 11:4). He acquiesces and erects idols to placate his pagan wives (I Kings 11:4-8). In appeasing the women, he alienates God (I Kings 11:6). The king does what many do: he makes the mistake of tending to the interests of the immediate, temporal issues which surround him instead of the transcendent, eternal deity which sustains him.
<p>What does the number of his wives say about Solomon (I Kings 11:3)? Is the mandate against intermarriage primarily a warning against foreign women or foreign gods (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)? Would you pursue a relationship with someone who practiced a different religion? What is the most spouses you have heard of someone having? What did you think of that person? Why does the Bible not expressly condemn polygamy? Are there any biblical instances where polygamy “works”? In addition to marriage partners, when is less more? Does Solomon have any influence on his wives? How much influence does your significant other have on you; how much do you exert over them? Who would it grieve you more to displease, your loved ones or God?
<p>The note regarding King Solomon’s wives is a precursor to the account of the division of Israel’s kingdom in the next chapter (I Kings 12:1-24). I Kings 11:1-13 braces the reader for the fall of Solomon’s empire.
<p>Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:
<blockquote>The long narrative preparing the division of the empire is not a unified whole but was assembled from several single pieces to arrive at its current form. After giving the basic reasons for the events in Solomon’s wrong behavior in I Kings 11:1-13, the narrative moves on to depict Jeroboam as a renegade and unlawful usurper in I Kings 11:26, 40. (Fritz, <i>1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary)</i>, 130)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.providenceseminary.ca/seminary/faculty/august_konkel/>August H. Konkel</a> (b. 1948) classifies:
<blockquote>This section [I Kings 11:1-13] has been characterized as a theological review. It contains offenses and judgment statements that evaluate the king according to prophetic orthodoxy. The prophetic indictment is given as a word from Yahweh without any specification as to the occasion or manner in which that word is delivered. (Konkel, <i>1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 219)</blockquote>
Despite elevating Israel to unprecedented heights, the mighty king will fall. The seeds for this demise have long been evident. <a href=http://www.providenceseminary.ca/seminary/faculty/lissa_wray_beal/>Lissa M. Wray Beal</a> exposes:
<blockquote>The initial verses (I Kings 11:1-8) reveal Solomon’s heart and the reasons for YHWH’s judgment. With I Kings 3:1-3 they bracket Solomon’s narrative and negatively characterize the king. In Kings 3 Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter; the closing bracket now includes other foreign women. In I Kings 3:3 Solomon ‘loves’ YHWH; the only other place where Solomon ‘loves’ is in I Kings 11:1 – but now the ‘love’ is for these foreign women. In I Kings 3:1 the king’s intention to build the temple is mentioned...in I Kings 11:7-8 the temple project is denigrated as Solomon builds temples to foreign gods. Finally, I Kings 3:3 records the king’s positive attitude towards torah obedience, obedience explicitly compromised in I Kings 11:10. (Beal, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Apollos Old Testament Commentary)</I>, 168-69)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.luthersem.edu/faculty/fac_bio.aspx?contact_id=tfrethei>Terence E. Fretheim</a> (b. 1936) concurs:
<blockquote>The narrative turns from Solomon’s love for the Lord (I Kings 3:3; see Deuteronomy 6:5), as God had loved him (II Samuel 12:24), to his love for his foreign wives (I Kings 11:1-2); these two references bracket the reign of Solomon. This is a love story gone awry. God’s continuing love does not overwhelm Solomon’s decision to turn his love toward that which is not God, to violate his own call for complete devotion to God (I Kings 8:61). (Fretheim, <i>First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 62)</blockquote>
Solomon’s plight is foreshadowed in the preceding chapter as well (I Kings 10:1-29). <a href=http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/>Peter J. Leithart</a> (b. 1959) catalogs:
<blockquote>The praise for Solomon is not undiluted, since the narrator records that Solomon violates the laws of kingship by multiplying gold and weapons. Gold is mentioned some ten times in this chapter [I Kings 10:1-29]...Solomon has so much gold that he uses it for drinking vessels [I Kings 10:21] and for ceremonial shields [I Kings 10:16-17], and the abundance of gold drives the value of silver to nothing (I Kings 10:21). This seems a further encomium to Solomon, but Deuteronomy 17:14-17 specifically forbids Israel’s kings from multiplying gold and silver...Solomon also gathers horses and chariots [I Kings 10:25-29], again in violation of the rules of Deuteronomy 17:16, and even imports them from Egypt [I Kings 10:28], the very place that Israel was <i>forbidden</I> to go for horses and chariots. These violations prepare for the climactic violation in I Kings 11, the multiplication of wives, who seduce Solomon into idolatry [I Kings 11:1-13]. (Leithart, <i>1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 81)</blockquote>
In recounting Solomon’s reign, the text saves the worst for last. <a href=http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff/search?uun=aulda&search=3&cw_xml=bio.php>A. Graeme Auld</a> (b. 1941) reveals:
<blockquote>The most trenchant criticism of Solomon is left to the end of the report. We have sensed at various points in the previous chapters an undertow of critique; but now it is on the surface and in the open. (Auld, <i>I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible)</I>, 80)</blockquote>
J. Maxwell Miller (b. 1937) detaches:
<blockquote>I Kings 3-11 presents Solomon the faithful ruler who achieved the golden age, then I Kings 11 presents a later Solomon led astray by foreign wives and struggling to maintain the secularity of his kingdom. This is an artificial arrangement; the compilers separated out and placed at the end of Solomon’s reign the items which conflicted with their notion of an ideal Solomonic era. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Separating the Solomon of History from the Solomon of Legend”, <i>The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium</I>, 16)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.mcmasterdivinity.ca/faculty/core/paul-s-evans>Paul S. Evans</a> concurs:
<blockquote>Beginning in I Kings 10:26 there is a clear bent to present Solomon’s shortcomings. Describing his direct violations of the law regarding chariots (from Egypt no less—explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:16) and amassing of wealth (forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:17). This undercurrent of negativity in this otherwise lionizing description of Solomon has been noted by many. See <a href=http://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/Nelson>Richard D. Nelson</a> [b. 1945], <i>First and Second Kings</I> (<a href=http://www.atlantaga.gov/>Atlanta</a>: <a href=http://www.wjkbooks.com/>John Knox</a>, 1987), 66-67; and Jerome T. Walsh [b. 1942], <i>I Kings</i> (editor David W. Cotter; <a href=http://www.collegevilletownship.com/>Collegeville</a>, <a href=http://mn.gov/>Minnesota</a>; <a href=http://www.litpress.org/>Liturgical</a>, 1996), 137-38. This aspect is surprisingly overlooked by many. E.g., <a href=http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/b/blong/>Burke O. Long</a> [b. 1938] (<i>1 Kings</I>, 120) notes this section’s intention as to “glorify Solomon” and does not note the overt (or subtle) critique when read in light of Deuteronomy 17. Curiously, Martin J. Mulder [1923-1994] (<i>1 Kings</I> [Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; translator John Vriend [1925-2002]; <a href=http://www.leuven.be/>Leuven</a>; <a href=http://www.belgium.be/>Belgium</a>: <a href=http://www.peeters-leuven.be/>Peeters</a>, 1999], 542) notes the Deuteronomy 17:17 connection only to support the idea that “Egypt was famous for its horses.” (Evans, <i>The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18-19</I>, 149)</blockquote>
<a href=http://isfn.skytech.co.il/>Israel Finkelstein</a> (b. 1949) and <a href=http://www.umass.edu/anthro/faculty/documents/SilbermanCV2011.pdf>Neil Asher Silberman</a> (b. 1950) characterize:
<blockquote>The Biblical Solomon is haunted by a great contradiction. In I Kings 3-10, he is the great successor of David, a larger-than-life ruler who builds the Temple in Jerusalem and who provides the standards of wisdom and opulence that countless later kings would attempt to achieve. Yet in I Kings 11:1-13 he is little more than a senile apostate, who is led astray by the charms of his many foreign wives. (Finkelstein and Silberman, <i>David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition</I>, 179)</blockquote>
The downfall of a nation in conjunction with an idolatrous queen will recur in I Kings. <a href=http://www.luthersem.edu/faculty/fac_home.aspx?contact_id=choward002>Cameron B.R. Howard</a> (b. 1980) studies:
<blockquote>Taking on a sardonic tone, the narrator remarks of Ahab, “And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, he took as his wife Jezebel daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshiped him.” [I Kings 16:31] The marriage was surely a political move, creating an alliance with the Sidonians, that is, the Phoenicians, whose kingdom was just north of Israel. Solomon had employed the same strategy hundreds of times, to the disdain of YHWH and the Deuteronomists, though with great political effect. In the eyes of the narrator, it is as if Jezebel herself is capable of more harm than Solomon’s seven hundred foreign wives and three hundred concubines put together. (<a hrf=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/newsom.cfm>Carol A. Newsom</a> [b. 1950], <a href=http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/en-us/faculty/facultydirectory/sharonringe.aspx>Sharon H. Ringe</a> [b. 1946] and <a href=http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1937>Jacqueline E. Lapsley</a> [b. 1965], <i>Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated</i>, 172)</blockquote>
Despite the influence of his pagan wives, when Solomon’s kingdom falls, Solomon himself is to blame. <a href=http://cams.la.psu.edu/directory/gxk7>Gary N. Knoppers</a> (b. 1956) clarifies:
<blockquote>One may observe that the <i>topos</I> of mixed marriages explains a reversal in the course of Solomonic rule, but it does not excuse it. Solomon’s foreign wives catalyze his decline, but YHWH becomes enraged with Solomon and not his wives, “because he turned...his heart from YHWH, the God of Israel” (I Kings 11:9). Similarly, the judgment oracle of I Kings 11:11-13 accuses Solomon and not his wives, of malfeasance. The refusal to excuse Solomon underscores the force of the prohibitions he violates. In his dotage (I Kings 11:4) Solomon flounders because he flouts established divine commands. Under the rule of law even one of Israel’s most distinguished monarchs can be judged and found wanting. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy”, <i>The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium</I>, 398)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.vose.edu.au/view/staff/faculty>John W. Olley</a> (b. 1938) examines:
<blockquote>According to the practices of the ancient Near East all was praiseworthy, showing a mastery of international politics and diplomacy...The biblical writer however saw a sign of weakness and failure for it contradicted the Deuteronomic warning (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). It could be said that Solomon trusted in political alliances, sealed by marriages, rather than wholeheartedly in Yahweh, a negation of “be strong” of I Kings 2:2-3. In fact, the warning became reality as <i>his wives turned his heart after other gods</I> (I Kings 11:4). While this statement has been read as blaming the wives, just as Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12), God places the responsibility squarely with Solomon (I Kings 11:9-10; cf. Genesis 3:17-19). (Olley, <i>The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today)</I>, 115-16)</blockquote>
Solomon is clearly not discriminating in his marriages and various explanations have been posited for his excessive polygamy. <a href=http://www.univie.ac.at/judaistik/pers/Langer_Gerhard.html>Gerhard Langer</a> (b. 1960) recounts:
<blockquote>Rabbi Jose ben Halafta [second century CE] (Canticles Rabbah 1.1.10) is of the opinion that Solomon took these women in order to win them for the Lord, to convert them to the true faith. Other Rabbis opine that Solomon was seduced to sin and sexual deviance. According to Rabbi Eleazer ben Rabbi Jose ha Gelili [second century CE] , Solomon had intercourse with these women during their menstruation period. (<a href=https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/researchers/117/>Joseph Verheyden</a> [b. 1957], “Solomon in Rabbinic Literature”, <i>The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect</I>, 130)</blockquote>
Though he is said to have “loved many foreign women” (I Kings 11:1 NASB), many assume that there are political motivations behind Solomon’s marriages. <a href=http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=25512>Richard D. Patterson</a> (b. 1929) and Hermann J. Austel (1926-2011) suspect:
<blockquote>Though Solomon may originally have taken foreign wives for the cementing of diplomatic alliances, I Kings 11:2 states that he “held fast to them in love.” This speaks of strong emotional attachment, which is normal and desirable in a husband. But because Solomon was attached to the wrong women, he was led astray. The seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, though perhaps adding to the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom, were his downfall. (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html>Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406>David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>1 Samuel ~2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</i>, 728-29)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/Nelson>Richard D. Nelson</a> (b. 1945) appraises:
<blockquote>What the modern reader may see as the necessary political reality of intermarriage between allied royal families and what the ancient person would have normally interpreted as a witness to Solomon’s glorious potency as a ruler (cf. I Kings 11:4), the narrator evaluates single-mindedly as a violation of the law of God (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). It is not the fantastic number of these wives which is presented as the problem; it is their nationality and religion and Solomon’s accommodation to it. Even though Solomon himself did not worship their gods (I Kings 11:8b, note the plural), it was enough that he had been lured into building places of sacrifice for them. Just as the construction of the temple is presented as the acme of his piety, so these high places are sufficient evidence that “his heart was not wholly true to Yahweh his God” (I Kings 11:4). (Nelson, <i>First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 69-70)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.scu.edu/jst/academics/faculty/hens-piazza/>Gina Hens-Piazza</a> (b. 1948) supports:
<blockquote>The choice Solomon made again and again over the course of his life is clear. The final assessment that unfolds in these verses (I Kings 11:1-8) is less about breaking one law of Deuteronomy as it is about his repeated choices that now culminate in comprehensive waywardness. Polygamy itself is not the issue. That was a common and accepted practice in the ancient world. Failure to trust in the Lord is the crime here. The involvement with women from Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite kingdoms indicts Solomon. Such intermarriages grew out of international alliances and treaties by which nations secured themselves before enemy threats. Solomon’s guilt lies in placing his trust in the power of others rather than in God. (Hens-Piazza, <I>1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary)</I>, 108-09)</blockquote>
Though Solomon’s many lovers facilitate his downfall, the fact that he enters into these unions is evidence of his proneness. His political allegiances demonstrate a lack of trust in God. Like Adam who is with Eve when partaking of Eden’s forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6), the great king is culpable in his kingdoms demise despite his wives’ influence. The root of the problem lies in Solomon, not the women or their gods. God is to be his true love and as such, all of the women and idols become little more than “the other woman”.
<p>Where is Solomon’s legendary wisdom when consenting to his marriages? When have you seen the worst of a person revealed at the end of her life; when has the worst been saved for last? Who is most to blame for the fall of the united kingdom of Israel? Who do you know whose downfall was closely connected to the opposite sex? Do you most rely upon divine guidance or human ingenuity? Where does God rank among your loves?
<blockquote>“I found out a long time ago
<br>What a woman can do to your soul
<br>Oh, but she can’t take you any way,
<br>You don’t already know how to go.”
<br>- <a href=http://www.eaglesband.com/>The Eagles</a>, “Peaceful Easy Feeling” (1972)</blockquote>Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-89752117248222800352014-05-12T15:00:00.000-07:002014-05-12T15:00:03.844-07:00Herod: Crazy Like a Fox (Luke 13:32)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qnc9iBQI134/U3A7bUl6zLI/AAAAAAAAI2Q/zkKrKkyvz0Y/s1600/PrinceJohnRobinHood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225.333" width="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qnc9iBQI134/U3A7bUl6zLI/AAAAAAAAI2Q/zkKrKkyvz0Y/s320/PrinceJohnRobinHood.jpg" /></a></div><b>Who did Jesus call “a fox”? Herod.</b>
<p>While Jesus is on a teaching tour some Pharisees advise him to depart the region as Herod Antipas desires to kill him (Luke 13:31). Herod is the unscrupulous tetrarch of Judea who has already beheaded John the Baptist (Luke 9:9). Undaunted, Jesus fearlessly fires back a message for Herod (Luke 13:32-35). He begins by referring to the ruler with the unflattering epithet “that fox” (Luke 13:32).
<blockquote>And He [Jesus] said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.’” (Luke 13:32 NASB)</blockquote>
I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) summarizes:
<blockquote>Some Pharisees warn Jesus to flee from the murderous intentions of Herod Antipas, but he replies with an expression of contempt for that ‘fox’ [Luke 13:31-32]; he had a task to perform, which will conclude with his ‘perfecting’ in Jerusalem [Luke 13:33], and no Herod will be able to divert him from it. He has, therefore, no need to flee at this juncture. If Herod wants to kill him he had better go to Jerusalem! (Marshall, <i>The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 568-69)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/kazuhiko-yamazaki-ransom/5a/972/8b>Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom</a> (b. 1970) situates:
<blockquote>The context is Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem [Luke 9:51]. The Pharisees’ report reveals what was implicit in Luke 9:9: Antipas was not merely curious about Jesus but actually intending to kill him. It is not immediately clear why Luke included this short episode at this point in his narrative. The reader is told about Antipas’ intention to kill Jesus, but Luke tells of no further action on the side of the tetrarch. Even when Antipas finally met Jesus in Jerusalem, it was by the initiative of Pilate (Luke 23:7). <a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/hhoehner/>Harold W. Hoehner</a> [1935-2009] argues that Antipas could not kill Jesus immediately. Although he saw Jesus’ movement as a potential threat, he had no evidence that Jesus was actually causing political trouble. So the best he could do was to pose a threat so Jesus would leave his territory. Such a political manoeuvre was indeed fitting for Jesus’ designation of him as a ‘fox’ – a crafty coward. (Yamazaki-Ransom, <i>The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative</I>, 169-70)</blockquote>
There is no doubt that someone is attempting to intimidate Jesus but there is a question as to who is doing so. Though it is the Pharisees who alert Jesus of Herod’s ruinous desires (Luke 13:31), this faction is typically depicted in opposition to Christ (Luke 5:30, 6:2, 7, 7:30, 39, 11:38-39, 42, 43, 53, 12:1) which calls their motives into question: Is the allegation legitimate? Are they conscientiously alerting a fellow Jew of a plot against his life or is this a case of politics making strange bedfellows with the Pharisees using Herodian threats to initiate Jesus’ withdrawal which they themselves desire?
<p><a href=http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/faculty/jdarr.html>John A. Darr</a> (b. 1953) acknowledges:
<blockquote>In this scene, Herod remains offstage. A report of murderous intentions on the part of Herod reaches Jesus through the Pharisees, who urge Jesus to leave the area (Luke 13:31). The fact that members of a group apparently inimical to Jesus (see Luke 11:53-12:1) are the sole source of this information arouses the reader’s suspicions both about the authenticity of the report and about the Pharisee’s true intentions in delivering it. In a rare occurrence in the Lukan narrative, the reader is given no authoritative guidelines (e.g. by the narrator) to help in assessing this account. (Darr, <i>Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism And Lukan Characterization</I>, 175)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/brucejmalina/>Bruce J. Malina</a> (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) presume:
<blockquote>The behavior of Pharisees here [Luke 13:31] is a good indication of how in-group and out-group boundaries work. Throughout the story, Jesus and his followers form an in-group opposed to the Pharisees, a hostile out-group. But now the Pharisees warn Jesus of Herod’s plan to kill him, thus doing him a favor. In the perception of the Pharisees, when it comes to Herod, Jesus forms part of their in-group, with Herod and his supporters forming an out-group. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, <i>Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels</I>, 283)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.michaelcard.com/>Michael Card</a> (b. 1957) perceives:
<blockquote>Due to an almost universal bias against the Pharisees, this story is almost always viewed with a negative slant. I would like to believe, however, that these particular Pharisees are showing a genuine concern for Jesus’ safety. We will see Jesus in the home of a Pharisee one last time in chapter 14 [Luke 14:1], and it will not necessarily be a negative encounter. In fact, Jesus will even heal a man with dropsy on that occasion, and yes, it will be on a Sabbath [Luke 14:1-6]. So perhaps this is a friendly warning. (Card, <i>Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination)</I>, 172)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/kazuhiko-yamazaki-ransom/5a/972/8b>Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom</a> (b. 1970): scrutinizes:
<blockquote>It has been debated whether the Pharisees’ report was true or false as well as what their motive was. First, the portrayal of Antipas as a murderer is consistent with Luke’s totally negative portrayal up to this point in his narrative [Luke 3:19-20, 9:7-9]. Second, Jesus does not negate or question the Pharisees’ report. Thus it seems the Pharisees’ report was true. See <a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/hhoehner/>Harold W. Hoehner</a> [1935-2009] , <i>Herod Antipas</I>, pp. 175, 219; Richard J. Cassidy [b. 1942], <i>Jesus, Politics, and Society</I>, p. 51; contra <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/johnson.cfm>Luke Timothy Johnson</a> [b. 1943], <i>Luke</I>, pp. 218, 368. On the other hand, although some Pharisees were portrayed either neutrally or positively in Acts (notably Gamaliel [Acts 5:33-39] and Paul [Acts 23:6, 26:5]), in Luke’s Gospel they are consistently portrayed negatively. Thus it seems unlikely that they were reporting to Jesus about Antipas in order to help him. Contra Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920], <i>Luke</I>, p. 1030; <a href=http://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/fellows-directory/joseph-b-tyson/>Joseph B. Tyson</a> [b. 1928], ‘Jesus and Herod Antipas’, <a href=http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/journals_jbl_noLogin.aspx><i>Journal of Biblical Literature</I></a> 79 (1960), pp. 239-46 (246); Martin Rese [b. 1935], ‘Einige Überlegungen zu Lukas XIII, 31-33’, in Jacques Dupont [1915-1998] (editor), <i>Jésus aux origines de la christologie</I> (<a href=http://www.peeters-leuven.be/search_serie_book.asp?nr=96>Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium</a>, 40; <a href=http://www.leuven.be/en/tourism/>Leuven</a>: <a href=http://upers.kuleuven.be/en>Leuven University Press</a>, 1989), pp. 201-25 (209-15). It is more likely that the Pharisees were using the information to run Jesus out of their territory. See Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke</I> (International Critical Commentary), 28; <a href=http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/>Edinburgh</a>: <a href=http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/academic/academic-subjects/theology/t-t-clark/>T. & T. Clark</a>, 5th edition, 1922), p. 348; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], <i>Luke</I> p. 571; <a href=http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/faculty/jdarr.html>John A. Darr</a> [b. 1953], <i>Herod the Fox</I>, pp.175-79. (Yamazaki-Ransom, <i>The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative</I>, 169)</blockquote>
Jesus does not question their motivation but instead instructs the Pharisees to “go and tell that fox...” (Luke 13:32). He is not, however, positioning the Pharisees as mediators between himself and his would be murderer. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) assumes:
<blockquote>This is not a command that Jesus gives to the Pharisees whom he would send back, but rather his rhetorical comment on their warning and the situation that faces him. He sees through Herod’s character. (Fitzmyer, <i>The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible)</I>, 1031)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/johnson.cfm>Luke Timothy Johnson</a> (b. 1943) concurs:
<blockquote>Rather than flee, Jesus sends them back [Luke 13:32]. Are they speaking for Herod? Then they can deliver this message back to him. This is, of course, all rhetorical. (Johnson, <i>Luke (Sacra Pagina)</I>, 218)</blockquote>
Jesus brazenly resorts to name calling against the powerful tetrarch, referring to him as “that fox” (Luke 13:32). The Greek <i>alōpēx</I> is almost universally rendered “fox” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). There are three New Testament references to foxes, all of which emanate from the lips of Jesus (Matthew 9:20; Luke 9:58, 13:32).
<p>The <i>Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary</I> defines:
<blockquote>The relatively few references in Scripture are to the common fox of Palestine, <i>Vulpesvulgaris</I>, a wild carnivore of the dog family, living usually on a diet of small animals and fruit, though its European relations may sometimes be found looking into trash cans during daylight hours as well as at night. This natural predator usually lives in burrows, the American red fox being a related species. Damage to vineyards by “the little foxes” (Song of Solomon 2:15) may have been a reference to jackals rather than to foxes. Similarly the 300 foxes caught by Samson in order to pair them for raids on Philistine corn fields, with lit torches tied to their tails (Judges 15:4-5), may have been jackals, which would have been more readily caught. Tobiah the Ammonite poured scorn on the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem by suggesting that even the tread of a fox would break the stones (Nehemiah 4:3). The craftiness of the fox was emphasized by our Lord’s description of Herod Antipas (Luke 13:32). (J.D. Douglas [1922-2003] and Merrill C. Tenney [1904-1985], <i>Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary</I>, 76-77)</blockquote>
Though the term is consistently translated, H.K. Moulton (1903-1982) informs:
<blockquote>An Eskimo translator is faced with an inverted set of problems...When our Lord says of Herod, ‘Go and tell that fox...’ [Luke 13:32] the question comes back, ‘What kind of fox? We have grey, red, blue and white’. Remembering that the fox is the emblem of craftiness and destructiveness we ask which of the four Eskimo foxes is most like that, and the answer comes back, ‘None, our crafty animal is the wolverine’. So the wolverine it must be in the Eskimo Bible to get the meaning across to them, even if it means nothing to us. (Moulton, <a href=http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ijt/23_1-2_009.pdf>“Bible Translation”</a>, Indian Journal of Theology 23.1-2 (January-June 1974), 16-17)</blockquote>
Some have seen the term as especially derogatory given its feminine gender. <a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/religious_studies/pages/gundry.html?>Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) typifies:
<blockquote>A vixen is a female fox and therefore not to be feared. By calling Herod a vixen, Jesus is saying he has nothing to fear from Herod. (Gundry, <i>Commentary on Luke</i>)</blockquote>
Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) counters:
<blockquote>We cannot infer that the feminine is used here in a contemptuous sense: but the masculine occurs in Song of Solomon 2:15. (Plummer, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 349)</blockquote>
Jesus is clearly using a figure of speech and does not intend to characterize Herod as an omnivorous four-legged mammal. <a href=http://theopro.unistra.fr/presentation/enseignants-et-chercheurs/equipe-actuelle/j-joosten/>Jan Joosten</a> (b. 1959) delineates:
<blockquote>A different distinction established by linguists is that between denotation and connotation. While the meaning of a word may remain more or less stable, its affective impact and the mental images it calls up may vary. Some Greek words of the New Testament are given a connotation that is unusual in profane literature but explicable in light of Semitic models. A nice example is the use of the word ἀλώπηξ, “fox”, in Luke 13:32. While Greek (and modern European) usage would lead one to think Jesus qualifies Herod Antipas as a crafty person, Hebrew and Aramaic literature use the fox more often as an image of insignificance. Contextually, it is indeed more likely that Jesus qualifies Herod as “small-fry”, a person of no consequence. (<a href=http://www.uco.es/organiza/centros/filosofia/dinamica/index.php/profesor/ficha/ff1mosaj>Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala</a> [b. 1962] and <a href=http://www.uco.es/organiza/centros/filosofia/dinamica/index.php/profesor/ficha/angel.urban>Ángel Urbán</a>, “The Graceo-Semitic Vocabulary of the New Testament”, <i>Sacred Text: Explorations in Lexicography</I>, 119)</blockquote>
A reader must be careful not to impose the figurative connotations of the present age onto the ancient text. <a href=http://www.denverseminary.edu/about/faculty/member/77856/>William W. Klein</a> (b. 1946), <a href=http://www.denverseminary.edu/about/faculty/member/86444/>Craig L. Blomberg</a> (b. 1955) and <a href=http://www.northpark.edu/Seminary/About-the-Seminary/~/media/380D07752CCC466CB75EE0548C12D27F.ashx>Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.</a> (b. 1943) advise:
<blockquote>When Jesus called Herod Antipas a fox (Luke 13:32), his hearers understood “fox” to represent a certain value. To call someone a fox today would have different meanings or values, depending upon the culture (or subculture) involved. If a reader simply imposed a current value for “fox,” the original intent would be obscured or even lost. In some cultures, fox might have no connotative value, and the meaning would simply be opaque. Biblical revelation was communicated within cultures. It could not be otherwise, for all human language is culturally conditioned. (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, <i>Introduction to Biblical Interpretation</I>, 173)</blockquote>
Jesus is utilizing a metaphor. <a href=http://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/brenda-b-colijn>Brenda B. Colijn</a> (b. 1952) explains:
<blockquote>As figures of comparison, metaphors have two parts: the subject of the comparison (often called the tenor) and the thing with which the subject is compared (often called the vehicle)...When Jesus calls Herod a fox (Luke 13:32), “Herod” is the tenor, and “fox” is the vehicle. Jesus uses the connotations of “fox” to suggest something about Herod. (Colijn, <i>Images of Salvation in the New Testament</i>, 36)</blockquote>
The metaphor defines Jesus’ relationship with Herod. Robert L. Brawley (b. 1939) discloses:
<blockquote>Some philosophers of language call the nonfigurative referent of a metaphor the subsidiary subject and the figurative referent the principal subject. Metaphors may produce epiphoric effects, that is, they may <i>expand</I> meaning beyond the subsidiary subject. But metaphors also generate diaphoric effects, that is, they may <i>create</I> meaning by evoking new ways of construing what we comprehend. When Jesus calls Herod a fox in Luke 13:32, he expands meaning beyond the nonfigurative referent of a four-footed mammal to the figurative—an epiphoric effect. But he also evokes a new way of construing his relationship to the potentate and his potency—a diaphoric effect. (Brawley, <i>Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts</I>, 9)</blockquote>
The interpretive key is to determine what “fox” meant in the original context and where this understanding intersects with Luke’s depiction of Herod. What the fox implies today is not necessarily what was meant in Jesus’ day.
<p><a href=http://seminary.bethel.edu/academics/san-diego-programs/divinity/faculty>Mark L. Strauss</a> (b. 1959) compares:
<blockquote>Today the fox is viewed as clever and sly; this is one of the qualities attributed to it by the Greeks and in later rabbinic literature (often with negative connotations of deception and cunning). In other Jewish contexts, however, the fox is viewed as an insignificant creature (Nehemiah 4:3) or as a destroyer. Ezekiel identifies false prophets and prowling “jackals among ruins [Ezekiel 13:4].” Jesus’ comment may contain a variety of these connotations. (<a href=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/clinton_arnold/>Clinton E. Arnold</a> [b. 1958], <i>Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 123)</blockquote><a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jgreen/>Joel B. Green</a> (b. 1956) investigates:
<blockquote>The designation of Herod as a “fox” [Luke 13:32] must be understood, particularly since “fox” has a range of virtual, metaphorical properties not all of which are actualized here. For example, we read in the Lukan narrative no hint that Herod is particularly cunning or crafty. More appropriate is the metaphorical representation of Herod the fox as one who lacks the status or is impotent to carry out his threat. In this case, Herod’s rank would be relativized by the recognition that Jesus, whose mission is rooted in divine necessity, thus serves one of greater status and power than Herod or the Rome he represents. Herod’s threat is blunted because his design runs contrary to the divine will. A further foxlike trait is potentially actualized in Jesus’ use of this metaphor — namely, the proclivity of fox for malicious destructiveness: “Upon hearing of Herod’s threat,” then, “Jesus pegs the Tetrarch as a varmint in the Lord’s field, a murderer of God’s agents, a would-be disrupter of the divine economy.” (Green, <i>The Gospel of Luke (New International Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 536)</blockquote>
The fox transmits a variety of undertones. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) researches:
<blockquote>In rabbinic literature the fox was typical of low cunning (Berakoth 61b, citing Rabbi Akiba [40-137]; Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] II, 200f.), but it was also portrayed as an insignificant creature in comparison with the lion: ‘Be first in greeting every man; and be a tail to lions and be not a head to foxes’ (Pirkei Aboth 4:15). Both ideas have been detected here, the former by <a href=http://library.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/easton-burton-scott>Burton Scott Easton</a> [1877-1950] 221; <a href=http://www.cpprovince.org/archives/bios/2/2-21e.php>Carroll Stuhlmueller</a> [1923-1994], 147; and the latter by J.M. Creed [1889-1940] 186; Walter Grundmann [1906-1976], 288; probably both are present (T.W. Manson [1883-1958], <i>The Sayings of Jesus</I>, 276). Werner Grimm [b. 1945], 114-117, takes the point further and sees an allusion to king Saul (<i>šā’ûl</i>;cf. <i>šû‘āl</I>, ‘fox’) in contrast to the messianic ‘lion’ of the house of David (Genesis 49:9; Revelation 5:5). The saying would then contain an implicit messianic identification by Jesus; but in the absence of an explicit reference to the lion, this proposal is too speculative to be convincing. (Marshall, <i>The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary)</I>, 571)</blockquote>
Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:
<blockquote>In both classical and Hellenistic Greek <i>alōpex</I>, “fox,” was an epithet for a crafty or sly person. See Pindar [522-443 BCE], <i>Pythian Odes</I> 2.77-78; Plato [427-347 BCE], <i>Republic</I> 2.8 § 365c; Plutarch [45-120], <i>Solon</I>, Epictetus [55-135], <i>Discourses</I> 1.3, 7-8. In the Old Testament <i>šû‘āl</I> is used of foolish prophets (Ezekiel 13:4); but in rabbinic literature it later carries the Greek connotation. See Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 2.200-201. Martin Dibelius [1883-1947] (<i>From Tradition to Gospel</I> 162-63) thinks that Jesus would hardly have used the epithet and that it betrays Luke’s interest in the great ones of the earth. Possible, but far from certain! It is, moreover, farfetched to think that “fox” is used with further connotations of a contrast with “lion”—or of Saul with David, <i>pace</I> Werner Grimm [b. 1945]. (Fitzmyer, <i>The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible)</I>, 1031)</blockquote>
There is a recurring theme in these assessments: negativity. <a href=http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/faculty/jdarr.html>John A. Darr</a> (b. 1953) portrays:
<blockquote>Almost without exception, the traits associated with foxes in the ancient Mediterranean world were pejorative. A very common notion was that the fox was intelligent. Though some fables depicted foxes as being wise and good, the vast majority portrayed the fox as using intelligence in a devious manner. That is, foxes were considered to be cunning, crafty, subtle, sly and mischievous, making up for a lack of physical strength with cleverness. The latter observation implies inferiority, a second trait commonly ascribed to foxes. The fox’s weakness and cowardice were often contrasted with the lion’s strength and courage. Thus, to call someone a fox could imply that the person was insignificant, lacking in true power despite the fact that he or she might accomplish things through cunning. A final trait ascribed to the fox was destructiveness, an attribute no doubt based on the actual experience of farmers who lost crops and livestock to these varmints. (Darr, <i>Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism And Lukan Characterization</I>, 180)</blockquote>
Given this data, “fox” carries several plausible associations. <a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/>Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) enumerates:
<blockquote>The signification of ἀλώπηξ (<i>alōpēx</I>) is debated (<a href=http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=858>E. Earle Ellis</a> [1926-2010] 1974:190): it can refer to (1) a person of no significance (Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 2:201; Nehemiah 4:3 [II Esdras 13:35 Septuagint]); (2) a deceiver, a person of cunning (which was the rabbinic force of the term; David Daube [1909-1999] 1956:191; Song of Songs Rabbah 15.1 on Song of Solomon 2:15); or (3) a destroyer (Ezekiel 13:4; Lamentations 5:18; I Enoch 89:10, 42-49, 55; A.R.C. Leaney [1909-1995] 1958:209). The formal Greek sense is the second meaning (Joseph A. Fiztmyer [b. 1920] 1985:1031; Epictetus [55-135] 1.3.7-8; Plutarch [45-120], <i>Life of Solon</I> 30.2 [95]), although either of the first two senses or a combination of them is possible, depending on how the context fills out the metaphor (T.W. Manson [1883-1958] 1949:276 and I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] 1978:571 mention the first two, while <a href=http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/faculty/jdarr.html>John A. Darr</a> [b. 1953] 1992:140-46 sees the third as primary and the second as possible). Considering how the Synoptics portray the way Herod removed the Baptist [Luke 9:7-9], the meaning of deceiver or destroyer is possible. Luke’s emphasis seems to be destructiveness, since Herod murdered “the greatest born of woman” (Luke 7:28) and later stands opposed to Jesus (Acts 4:26-28). In Luke 13 the issue is willingness to kill Jesus [Luke 13:31]. (Bock, <i>Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 1247)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406>David E. Garland</a> (b. 1947) encapsulates:
<blockquote><a href=http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/randall-buth-biography/>Randall Buth</a> [b. 1950] claims that the metaphor fits the rabbinic use of fox and challenges Herod’s inability to carry out his threat and attacks his pedigree and morality. He offers the following possible translations to convey the intent of the original: “Weakling, small fry, usurper, poser, clown, insignificant person, cream puff, nobody, weasel, jackass, tin soldier, peon, hick, pompous pretender, jerk, upstart.” In an article titled “Kings Are Lions, but Herod Is a Fox,” Eric A. Hermanson [b. 1940] argues that Jesus is saying that Herod is no lion but a jackass. (Garland, <i>Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 559)</blockquote>
Thus it is possible that Jesus is putting Herod in his place: I am a lion, you are a fox; I am David, you are Saul; or in the words of Rush Hour (1998): “I’m <a href=http://www.michaeljackson.com/>Michael Jackson</a> [1958-2009], You <a href=http://www.titojackson.com/>Tito</a>!”
<p>Some scholars have analyzed the epithet through the lens of physiognomy, the practice of analysis through physical characteristics. <a href=http://www.cn.edu/directory?view=281>Chad Hartsock</a> (b. 1977) deduces:
<blockquote>That Luke knows the conventions of physiognomics is clear, as he uses examples from all three categories of physiognomics—zoological, racial/ethnographical, and bodily features. In zoological terms, two examples will suffice. In Luke 3:7, John the Baptist refers to the crowds as a “brood of vipers,” and the meaning here is self-evidently negative and insulting...A second example is Luke 13:32, where Jesus is warned that Herod is out to get him. Jesus answers, “Go and tell that fox...” (Luke 13:32). Polemo [90-144]’s characterization of the fox is primarily that of being cunning and deceptive. Certainly Herod rules in such a matter, and the physiognomic convention is very much at work in this text to add a layer of meaning that is often unnoticed. (Hartsock, <i>Sight and Blindness in Luke-Acts: The Use of Physical Features in Characterization</I>, 167-68)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66210>Mikeal C. Parsons</a> (b. 1957) probes:
<blockquote>Pseudo-Aristotle remarks rather briefly that, in contrast to lions who are “brave,” foxes, because they are “reddish,” are of “bad character” (πανουργοι; 812a17), a comment that echoes Aristotle [384-322 BCE]’s point that the fox is cunning and of evil disposition (<i>History of Animals</I> 1.1.488b20). Polemo [90-144] is more expansive: “The fox is wily, deceitful, coy, evasive, rapacious, shrewd” (174). What they lack in physical strength, foxes make up for with cunning and deceit. (Parsons, <i>Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity</I>, 69)</blockquote>
Some physiognomy studies juxtapose the fox with the lion. <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66210>Mikeal C. Parsons</a> (b. 1957) discusses:
<blockquote>It is not necessary to introduce the lion/fox contrast as the primary context of Jesus’ saying, as some do, in order to understand how the imagery would have impacted the reader familiar with cultural symbolism of foxes echoed in the zoological method of physiognomy. To be sure, as <a href=http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/faculty/jdarr.html>John A. Darr</a> [b. 1953] has demonstrated, the primary image of “Herod the Fox” must be seen within the developing characterization of Herod in the Lukan narrative, from Luke 3-Acts 13. Darr rightly suggests that it is Herod’s foxlike trait of destructiveness that is most likely in the mind of the Lukan audience, a metaphor that is continued in Jesus’ next statement about Jerusalem: “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing” (Luke 13:34b). Darr concludes, “The image is that of the hen defending her chicks against attack by a predator. Although the predator is not specified, the reader very likely understands it to be a fox, for the fox was known as a common predator of chickens and the animal imagery lay close at hand in the passage.” This conclusion, however, should not exclude the metaphor from having a “surplus” of meaning, some of which is provided by the zoological method of the physiognomists. Thus the negative portrayal of Herod is reinforced by an appeal to the physiognomic repertoire that would have held foxes as essentially destructive creatures whose only virtue—cleverness—was self-serving. (Parsons, <i>Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity</I>, 71)</blockquote>
Whatever nuance(s) Jesus is attempting to convey, there is little doubt that he uses the term “fox” pejoratively and that the appellation would have been interpreted as such. As has been alluded, this is accentuated by the immediate context in which Jesus likens himself to a motherly “hen” gathering her chicks (Luke 13:34). Herod is the proverbial fox watching the hen house.
<p>Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) determines:
<blockquote>Jesus responds with a message for “that fox [Luke 13:32].” This would have been heard as a term of derision. Epictetus [55-135] (<i>Discourses</I> I.iii.8-9) is typical when he says: “For what else is a slanderous and malicious man but a fox, or something even more rascally and degraded? Take heed, therefore, and beware that you become not one of these rascally creatures.” The negative feature that fits this context is Herod’s destructiveness. He has killed John [Luke 9:9] and now he seeks to kill Jesus. Song of Solomon 2:15 speaks of young foxes that destroy vineyards. This is Herod: a destructive rascal! (Talbert, <i>Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (Reading the New Testament)</I>, 166)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.craigaevans.com/>Craig A. Evans</a> (b. 1952) modernizes:
<blockquote>The designation may imply a person of no significance or consequence, or a person of cunning and treachery. In either case the designation is derogatory and in today’s parlance might be better rendered as “rat.” (Evans, <i>Luke (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</I>, 216)</blockquote>
Leon Morris (1914-2006) bolsters:
<blockquote>T.W. Manson [1893-1958] says, ‘To call Herod “that fox” is as much as to say he is neither a great man nor a straight man; he has neither majesty nor honour.’ The expression is thus contemptuous. Herod is the only person Jesus is recorded as having treated with contempt. Later we read that he wanted to see Jesus perform a miracle, and that when Jesus stood before him the Master said nothing to him at all (Luke 23:8f.). When Jesus has nothing to say to a man that man’s position is hopeless. (Morris, <i>Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 249)</blockquote>
The epithet is fitting. Because their prey is small, foxes are solitary rather than pack hunters and Herod is a predator who preys on innocents (Matthew 2:16) and tolerates no rivals. The shoe fits.
<p><a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/john_t_carroll/>John T. Carroll</a> (b. 1954) comments:
<blockquote>The choice of the metaphor <i>fox</I> for Herod is apt [Luke 13:32], evocative of this powerful ruler’s destructive bent (cf. Song of Solomon 2:15). Jesus’ reply to these Pharisees reinforces the reader’s impression that the warning is realistic and thus contributes to the building of suspense as the story moves towards it conclusion—concerning the “how,” if not the “what,” of the end of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem. (Carroll, <i>Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library)</I>, 294)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.linkedin.com/pub/kazuhiko-yamazaki-ransom/5a/972/8b>Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom</a> (b. 1970) supports:
<blockquote>Jesus calls Antipas ‘that fox (ἀλώπηξ)’ (Luke 13:32). Foxes were associated with craftiness and inferiority in both Hellenistic and rabbinic literature. Others argue that the designation ‘fox’ implies destructiveness. Craftiness and destructiveness are, however, not mutually exclusive features. On the one hand, in Luke, Antipas appears as a destructive tyrant who kills John (Luke 9:9). On the other hand, when he finally meets Jesus, he does not kill him himself but cunningly sends him back to Pilate so that the latter, yielding to the pressure from the Jews, would crucify him (Luke 23:11). (Yamazaki-Ransom, <i>The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative</I>, 170)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=27824>Christoph W. Stenschke</a> (b. 1966) assesses:
<blockquote>Within this reference to Herod is the note that Jesus called him a fox [Luke 13:32]. Whether it conveys Herod’s weakness and insignificance (‘the mean and paltry man as opposed to the lion’) or craftiness and slyness, both meanings suggest that divine assessment of Herod is in contrast to his claims and self-confident behaviour in Luke 3:19f, 9:7-9, 23:7-12. <i>Either a sinful character trait is directly addressed</i> (cf. Luke 3:19f) <i>or an equally unacceptable attitude of pride and arrogance is indirectly addressed</I>: Herod is not what he thinks himself to be. (Stenschke, <i>Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith</I>, 132)</blockquote>
In calling Herod a “fox”, Jesus dismisses the king with one word (Luke 13:32). Though he follows this moniker with a message, it is unnecessary because all that would be remembered was that Jesus had the audacity to openly disparage the reigning ruler.
<p><a href=http://drjohnphillips.com/>John Phillips</a> (1927-2010) remarks:
<blockquote>Herod probably didn’t understand a word of it—except the part about his being a fox [Luke 13:32]. (Phillips, <i>Exploring the Gospel of Luke: An Expository Commentary</I>, 200)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.paulborgman.net/>Paul Borgman</a> (b. 1940) conjectures:
<blockquote>Jesus responds to the warning by referring to Herod as a fox [Luke 13:32] — wily, and an example of worthless “low-life.” This brushing-aside of the secular ruler sets up the narrative focus on the real adversaries of Jesus, his own religious peers and fellow Jews. (Borgman, <i>The Way According to Luke: Hearing the Whole Story of Luke-Acts</I>, 206)</blockquote>
Jesus calls Herod as he sees him and Christ is clearly not a fan of Judea’s tetrarch. Jesus uses his biting wit to show that the “King of the Jews” (Luke 23:3, 38) does not think much of Judea’s king nor is he threatened by him.
<p>Why do the Pharisees inform Jesus of Herod’s ambition to eliminate him (Luke 13:31)? Why does Jesus call Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32)? Which connotation of fox most applies to Herod? With what do you associate foxes? How has the connotation of the animal changed since Jesus’ time? Is Jesus’ use of the feminine form of fox an attempt to emasculate Herod? What is the modern equivalent of “that fox”? Are the Pharisees “foxes” too? If Herod is a fox, what animal is Jesus? When is it appropriate to call an opponent by an unflattering term? Have you ever been compared to an animal? To which animal would you least wish to be compared?
<p>Herod is a bully but his threats are not hollow. This king is not a person to be trifled with. When Jesus confronts Herod he is doing the same thing that leads to John the Baptist’s imprisonment and ultimately his death (Luke 3:19-20, 9:7).
<p><a href=http://www.seminary.edu/about/faculty/scot-mcknight/>Scot McKnight</a> (b. 1953) connects:
<blockquote>The use of “fox” for Herod Antipas strikes one as coherent with Jesus’ relation to John and to what Herod did to John [Luke 9:7-9]. The attitude expressed through the term did not endear the early Christians to the ruling authorities of their day, but it is quite consistent with Jesus’ attitude toward other authorities—one thinks here of the undeniable criticisms Jesus made of the Pharisees. The same criticisms may be found in rabbinic documents (e.g. <i>Babylonian Talmud Berakhot</I> 28a; <i>Babylonian Talmud Yebamoth</I> 109b; <i>Babylonian Talmud Shabbat</I> 1:4). It is the <i>attitude</i>...that betrays the authenticity of the tradition. The context, the style, and the meaning each speak more of the context of Jesus than a later rewriting of the Jesus tradition. (McKnight, <i>Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory</I>, 134-35)</blockquote>
Jonathan Marshall (b. 1978) validates:
<blockquote>Identifying Antipas as a fox (ἀλώπηξ) [Luke 13:32] carries connotations of craftiness, destructiveness, and impotence (Epictetus [55-135], <i>Discourses</i> 1, 3, 7, 9; Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 61b; Song of Solomon 2:15; Ezekiel 13:4). A response to a threat made by the tetrarch is also historically plausible considering the response made by John to Antipas’s marriage to Herodias [Luke 3:19]. (Marshall, <i>Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke</I>, 186)</blockquote>
In confronting the alleged death wish, Jesus demonstrates his political awareness. Despite Herod’s track record, Jesus is obviously not intimidated by the maniacal ruler.
<p>Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) categorizes:
<blockquote>Jesus speaks boldly in response to Herod’s threat, calling him a “fox [Luke 13:32].” The original audience might interpret Jesus’ response in the context of a traditional “type-scene” of bold philosopher confronting tyrant, or bold prophet confronting king. (Tannehill, <i>Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)</I>, 224)</blockquote>
<a href=http://william-barclay.com/>William Barclay</a> (1907-1978) praises:
<blockquote>It takes a brave person to call the reigning king a fox. Bishop [Hugh] Latimer [1487-1555] was once preaching in <a href=http://www.westminster-abbey.org/>Westminster Abbey</a> when <a href=https://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheTudors/HenryVIII.aspx>Henry VIII</a> [1491-1547] himself was one of the congregation. In the pulpit he soliloquized, ‘Latimer! Latimer! Latimer! Be careful what you say. The king of <a href=https://www.gov.uk>England</a> is here!’ Then he went on, ‘Latimer! Latimer! Latimer! Be careful what you say. The King of Kings is here.’ (Barclay, <i>The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible)</I>, 220)</blockquote>
In some ways, calling Herod a “fox” fits Jesus’ counter-cultural modus operandi. <a href=http://www.senateofseramporecollege.edu.in/faculty.php?college=Select%20College&spez=New%20Testament&i=0>L. R. Arul Sam</a> characterizes:
<blockquote>Jesus opposes injustice and speaks out against oppression, advocates non-violence, affirms new roles for women, condemns the rich, and praises those who give away their possessions. He calls Herod a ‘fox’ (Luke 13:31-33) and speaks of Pilate’s violence (Luke 13:1-30. He defies the Jewish Sanhedrin (Luke 22:67-70) and repudiates Gentile rulers (Luke 22:24-27). He predicts that those who are faithful to him will incur trouble from secular authorities (Luke 21:12). (Sam, <i>The Love Commandment of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke and Its Implication in the Indian Context</I>, 41)</blockquote>
Being fearless in the face of political oppression is part of the role Jesus is called to play. <a href=http://www.seminary.edu/about/faculty/scot-mcknight/>Scot McKnight</a> (b. 1953) appraises:
<blockquote>Prophets do not fear rulers. Jesus knows Antipas is devious, manipulative and dishonest. Regardless of what Antipas wants, Jesus declares he will continue in his redemptive, liberating work of the kingdom and it will end, as did John’s prophetic life, in death [Luke 13:32-35]. But Jesus’ death will be in the center of power, in Jerusalem. Like John’s death, Jesus’ will take place in conjunction with a festive meal [Matthew 14:6-12; Mark 6:14-29]. The politic of Jesus entails words for devious earthly kings, words that will kill Jesus. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Departments/Theology/Faculty/George-Kalantzis>George Kalantzis</a> [b. 1967] and <a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/L/Gregory-Lee>Gregory W. Lee</a> [b. 1978], “Extra Ecclesiam Nullum Regnum: The Politics of Jesus”, <i>Christian Political Witness</I>, 68)</blockquote>
Jesus keeps Herod and God in their proper places. <a href=https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/management/faculty_staff/academic_professors/bdyck.html>Bruno Dyck</a> (b. 1961) explains:
<blockquote>In his act of civil disobedience Jesus refuses to consider authorities like Herod to be more significant than they are. Jesus does not ingratiate himself to unjust authorities. This is evident in Jesus calling Herod a fox [Luke 13:32], an unflattering term that suggests conventional leaders like Herod do not play a central role in kingdom of God structures and systems. Jesus does not expect Herod’s support in promoting countercultural ideas (Dyck, <i>Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries</I>, 129)</blockquote>
Though the Bible does not report what the fox says in response (if anything), it is clear that Jesus is not afraid of a confrontation with the king. In the gospels, Herod is said to be afraid; Jesus is not (Matthew 14:5; Mark 6:20). Jesus never forgets that Herod’s power is minuscule in comparison to God’s. From this perspective, Herod poses no threat to Jesus. God can easily outfox “that fox”.
<p>Herod’s threat does not deter Jesus’ mission. Does the threat that Herod poses effect Jesus in any way? Should Christians confront corrupt politicians? Given Herod’s track record, why is Jesus unafraid of him? Is Jesus’ response to Herod a template for how to respond to bullies? Should Christians be fearless in the face of the objections of the secular world? Are you afraid of anything? Should you be?
<p>“A man who is intimate with God will never be intimidated by men.” - <a href=http://www.ravenhill.org/>Leonard Ravenhill</a> (1907-1994)Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-20970971816311677042014-05-08T15:00:00.000-07:002014-05-08T15:00:06.151-07:00Cain: Marked for Life (Genesis 4:15)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ulU-l597fdI/U2r36P9uxRI/AAAAAAAAI18/NqcCZ6LroM0/s1600/MarkOfCainMichaelHafftka.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="257.333" width="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ulU-l597fdI/U2r36P9uxRI/AAAAAAAAI18/NqcCZ6LroM0/s320/MarkOfCainMichaelHafftka.jpg" /></a></div><b>Why did God put a mark on Cain? So no one would kill him (Genesis 4:15)</b>
<p>After humanity has been exiled from Eden (Genesis 3:24), the first brothers born on earth, Cain and Abel, decide to offer sacrifices to God (Genesis 4:3). Presumably they are attempting to rebuild humanity’s relationship with the estranged deity (Genesis 4:3). Cain, a farmer, offers “the fruit of the ground” while Abel, a shepherd, brings “the firstlings of his flock” (Genesis 4:3-4 NASB). Though the text offers no explanation as to why, God favors Abel’s offering (Genesis 4:4-5). In response, a dejected Cain coaxes his brother into a field where he kills him (Genesis 4:8-9). The act marks the first premeditated murder.
<p>When confronted by God, Cain is informed that the ground will no longer sustain him and that he will survive as a fugitive (Genesis 4:10-12). In effect, Cain is homeless and unemployed.
<p>Cain seemingly laments his punishment more than his crime; he pleas with God claiming that the consequences are too great (Genesis 4:13-14). Ironically, the murderer also confesses that he fears being murdered. Cain’s plea bargain is successful. God assures him that if murdered he will be avenged sevenfold and then ratifies this agreement by marking Cain (Genesis 4:15).
<blockquote>So the Lord said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. (Genesis 4:15 NASB)</blockquote>
<a href=https://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/john-byron>John Byron</a> (b. 1967) summarizes:
<blockquote>The final aspect of the “sentencing phase”...is the mark of Cain in Genesis 4:15b. As part of God’s apparent promise of divine protection against a premature death, Cain is given a mark from God. The stated purpose of the mark was to prevent anyone from killing Cain. (Byron, <i>Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry</I>, 119)</blockquote>
Jurist <a href=http://www.alandershowitz.com/>Alan M. Dershowitz</a> (b. 1938) evaluates:
<blockquote>Cain murdered his younger brother and then tried to cover it up [Genesis 4:8-9]. His motive was petty jealousy over God’s unexplained preference for Abel’s offering. Yet despite the severity of the crime, God is relatively soft on Cain. God does not impose proportional punishment. Instead He makes him a fugitive and a wanderer [Genesis 4:12]. Being excluded from the clan could, of course, carry serious consequences in primitive society, since it returned the excluded person to the state of nature and exposed him to the elements as well as animals. (This may explain Rashi [1040-1105]’s interpretation of “the mark of Cain” as restoring the fear of Cain in animals.) Even in early <a href=https://www.gov.uk>England</a>, being denied the protection of the “king’s peace” was dangerous. But at least there was a chance of survival by the resourceful outsider. It was not capital punishment. (Dershowitz, <i>The Genesis of Justice: Ten Stories of Biblical Injustice that Led to the Ten Commandments and Modern Law</I>, ii)</blockquote>
In modern terms, Cain’s plea bargain waives the death penalty and imposes life in prison. In doing so, God insures that the cycle of violence will not escalate. There will be a moratorium on murder. Still, Cain serves forever as a cautionary tale.
<p>Cain’s petition marks a pivotal point in the narrative (Genesis 4:14). <a href=http://www.ctsnet.edu/emeriti-member?id=2>Walter Brueggemann</a> (b. 1933) pinpoints:
<blockquote>The crucial element is the exchange between the offender and the judge (Genesis 4:13-15). The sentence is that he be a fugitive, consigned to keep farming land that has no life in it (Genesis 4:11-12; cf. Genesis 3:17-19, 4:2). But the pause in the action is when Cain seeks mercy. The killer now fears to be killed (Genesis 4:13-14). The killer has no resources of his own but must cast himself upon the mercy of the life-giver. And such a mercy: a mark asserting both guilt and grace [Genesis 4:15]. (Brueggemann, <i>
Genesis (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching)</I>, 60)</blockquote>
Far from a tyrant, the deity allows the human to get a say in his future. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) contemplates:
<blockquote>At first, the divine word is supreme, creating all things (Genesis 1:1-2:4a). Then, in settling humankind in the Garden (Genesis 2:4b-24), the divine command, while still respected, is open to being contravened, broken. Later, in the eating, it is indeed broken (Genesis 3:1-7). Finally, Cain not only goes against it, but manages even to reverse it: his plea to Yhwh to change the decree of punishment (Genesis 4:6-8, 12-15). Thus, there is a strong contrast between the transcendent freedom of the opening command, “Let there be light [Genesis 1:3],” and the pressurized closing command not to kill Cain; the God who once pronounced with total sovereignty becomes Yhwh who takes up the logic of a distressed murderer (“Therefore/Very well,” Genesis 4:15). At the end, God’s word is interwoven with the word of a banished wanderer. (Brodie, <i>Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary</I>, 155)</blockquote>
Cain fears that “anyone who meets me may kill me” (Genesis 4:14 NASB). This statement is controversial as to this point Genesis has only mentioned three other people living on earth: Adam, Eve and God. Though Cain’s fears could be real they might also be imagined: The convicted killer could be projecting his own murderous intentions onto others.
<p><a href=http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/faculty/jack-collins/>C. John Collins</a> (b. 1954) considers:
<blockquote>We should read Genesis 4 under the assumption that the author is using Cain’s speech as a way of showing the readers the condition of Cain’s inner life. He could be afraid—perhaps God even considered the fear to be legitimate, since he put a “mark” on him (Genesis 4:15)—of what his siblings might carry out in due course, along the lines of what came to be known as the “avenger of blood” (see Numbers 35:9-34, where it is presented as an institution already familiar to the audience who received the Pentateuch)...It is also possible that the author wants us to think that Cain’s fears are exaggerated, the result of his evil deed upon his conscience. In this case God put a mark on Cain in order to reassure him. (Collins, <i>Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care</I>, 112-13)</blockquote>
God promises Cain that he will be avenged sevenfold should his fears become realized (Genesis 4:15). In effect, God will do for Cain what God did not do for Abel.
<p>In addition to his words, God provides a tangible sign (Genesis 4:15). Martin Sicker (b. 1931) infers:
<blockquote>Cain failed to appear satisfied with the Creator’s blanket assurances. Unable to deal with such intellectual abstractions and hypothetical situations, he required something more readily accessible to his senses, upon which he relied so heavily. Cain needed a sign, perhaps an omen, something he could fix his gaze upon, something he could sense. Accordingly, the biblical author suggests that the Creator, exhibiting extraordinary patience and tolerance, gave Cain the omen he felt he needed so desperately. (Sicker, <i>Reading Genesis Politically: An Introduction to Mosaic Political Philosophy</I>, 59)</blockquote>
Cain is bestowed a “mark” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “sign” (ASV, NASB) (Genesis 4:15). The Hebrew <i>’ôth</I>, can also mean “token”. Given this ambiguity, the mark has generated much speculation.
<p><a href=http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/jacobyr/>Russell Jacoby</a> (b. 1945) questions:
<blockquote>The translation of the Cain-Abel story into the Jewish-Christian conflict stumbled on a critical problem...God “set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.” The Lord wanted him marked but not killed (Genesis 4:15). God seemed to be playing a Talmudic joke, since the text offers no clue as to the nature of this mark. Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], an Alexandrian Jew, in his commentary puzzles about the obscurity. The Lord, Moses tells us, put a mark upon Cain, “but what his mark is, he has not shown, although he is in the habit of explaining the nature of everything by sign.” How is Cain to be identified? What is the mark? How do we know who is the Cain among us? After all, Cain is your brother and looks like everyone else, which is the problem. (Jacoby, <i>Bloodlust: On the Roots of Violence from Cain and Abel to the Present</I>, 83)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.beesondivinity.com/kennethamathews>Kenneth A. Mathews</a> (b. 1950) analyzes:
<blockquote>The “mark of Cain,” as it is popularly known, has proven to be a seedbed for confusion (Genesis 4:15b). “Mark” is the common word for “sign” (<i>’ōt</I>); the exact nature of the sign or its place on the body (“on Cain”) is unknown. One Jewish tradition pointed to Cain himself as the “sign” who served to admonish others to repentance (<i>Genesis Rabbah</I> 22.12). In effect this has become true for later generations, if not his own, for Cain the man has become a token of sin’s fruit and divine retribution (I John 3:12; Jude 1:11). Although “sign” is used figuratively in several passages (e.g., Exodus 13:9; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18), the only parallel is Ezekiel 9:4, where certain men receive a mark on the forehead. But even there it is an extended vision in which it only has symbolic force. What is important here is its purpose: “so that no one who found him would kill him” (Genesis 4:15). “Mark” in our passage is not a sign of the “curse”; in fact, it assures Cain’s safety rather than acts as a reproach. The mark in Ezekiel’s vision had the same effect; it distinguished those who bore the brand and gave them protections. (Mathews, <i>Genesis 1-11:26 (New American Commentary)</I>, 278)</blockquote>
The “Mark of Cain” has developed ominous connotations. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) clarifies:
<blockquote>This phrase has been persistently misunderstood. The reference is not to a stigma of infamy but to a sign indicating that the bearer is under divine protection. Hebrew <i>’ot</I> here probably involves some external physical mark, perhaps on the forehead, as in Ezekiel 9:4-6, serving the same function as the blood of the paschal lamb smeared on the lintels and doorposts of each Israelite house in Egypt [Exodus 12:7, 13, 22, 23]. It is also possible, though less likely, that the “sign” consists of some occurrence that serves to authenticate the divine promise as being inviolable. In that case, the text would be rendered: “The LORD gave Cain a [confirmatory] sign that no one who met him would kill him.” (Sarna, <i>Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary)</I>, 35)</blockquote>
Hugh C. White (1936-2001) laments:
<blockquote>Those who seek to kill will be killed; they will become victims of their own hostility...But there must be a mechanism by which this process will be set in motion, and this is a divine sign which is given or placed on Cain. The Hebrew is ambiguous (אות)...Whatever its outer form, its significance in this context is to establish a communicative relation between the character and the divine Voice. Cain will not be granted such micro-dialogues in the future. But a trace will remain of this word to him in the form of a material mark or sign apparently on his body...And there is the chief irony. The narrative began with Cain seeking spiritual identification with the divine through the sacrifice of material representations of his person...Now he is to be deprived of all hope of attaining such identification with the land and with the divine..Through it he will be reminded of this dialogue in the past with the divine judge which fixed his sentence as a curse, and the mercy by which he was granted this protecting mark...The physicality of this sign, which is now the organizing center of his identity, permanently bars him from any future attempts to attain identity with the divine. His identity is forever based upon a sign which imposes upon him its own temporal and material form. The mark thus functions as a type of inverted promise, a material sign which marks Cain in an autonomous mode of existence, closing his development as a character by guaranteeing his life against attack at the price of eternal liminality, and alienation. (White, <i>Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis</I>, 166)</blockquote>
Whatever the mark is, it should be perceived as an individual, not communal, distinction. That is, it likely applies only to Cain. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) determines:
<blockquote>There is no direct parallel which can clearly prove the individual or collective explanation. There are distinguishing marks like this both for individuals and for groups. One comes to a decision by looking at the content and meaning of the narrative as a whole — and the context points clearly to an individual mark. (Westermann, <i>Genesis 1-11 (Continental Commentary)</i>, 313)</blockquote>
The mark has long perplexed those wanting to visualize it and countless theories as to the mark’s substance have been posited. Given the fruitless conjecturing, some commentators simply ignore the issue.
<p><a href=https://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/john-byron>John Byron</a> (b. 1967) acknowledges:
<blockquote>It is not known what the mark was and all that can be said is that it was probably something visible. The Septuagint adds nothing to our understanding when it translates the mark as a “sign,” and there is nothing strikingly different among the other extant translations. And exegetes, for the most part, did not comment extensively on the Mark of Cain. For instance, in his <i>Questions and Answers in Genesis</I>, Philo [20 BCE-50 CE] does address God’s giving of the mark, but the focus of the question and subsequent commentary is on why the mark was given, and no speculation over the nature of the mark is provided. Josephus [37-100], too, avoids the topic by failing to even acknowledge that part of the story. The avoidance of the topic by interpreters may be symptomatic of their preoccupation with the seven-fold punishment of Genesis 4:15a and Genesis 4:24. Or it could be that they simply chose to ignore the mark since very little information is provided and it does not really support the overwhelming urge to rewrite Genesis 4:15 so that Cain’s punishment is magnified. (Byron, <i>Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry</I>, 119-20)</blockquote>
Despite the reticence of many to comment on the nature of the mark, countless theories have been posited. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) introduces:
<blockquote>In what form did the mark appear? Imagination has been unbridled here. Johann Adolph Bühlau has collected the older opinions, <i>De signo Cain posito</I>, 1713, Karl Fruhstorfer [1875-1956] the more recent. The most common is that it was a tattoo mark or an incision on the face, a different way of arranging the hair, circumcision, etc. One may mention as one among many, a Rabbinic suggestion, <i>Bereshit rabba</I> 22:12: God gave him a dog as his companion. (Westermann, <i>Genesis 1-11 (Continental Commentary)</i>, 314)</blockquote>
John H. Sailhamer (b. 1946) adds:
<blockquote>What is the “sign”? The narrative does not explicitly say, though many attempts have been made to identify it, e.g., as a bright-colored coat or a horn on his forehead (Ludwig Diestel [1825-1879], <i>Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der christliche Kirche</I> [<a href=http://www.jena.de/en/97320>Jena</a>: Mauke’s (Hermann Dufft), 1869], 497). (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html>Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406>David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>Genesis ~ Leviticus (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 102)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.utc.edu/philosophy-religion/profiles/hyx398.php>Irven M. Resnick</a> (b. 1952) reviews:
<blockquote>Most Jewish commentators viewed Cain as a repentant sinner, which explains why his punishment—to become a wanderer—was comparatively so light. But there were many variant traditions concerning the sign that marked Cain. <i>Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer</I> and, later, Rashi [1040-1105] understood the sign of Cain placed on Cain’s forehead to be one of the letters of the divine name. Other commentators—both Jewish and Christian—speculated that the sign was a horn on Cain’s forehead. Rupert of Deutz (d. 1129) insisted that in Scripture the sign placed on Cain was <i>not</I> a tremor in his body, or a horn on his forehead, or some other such thing. These are merely fables among the Jews. But Andrew of Saint Victor (d. 1175) noted that Cain was a vagabond, a wanderer, fearful, and that he sustained a “trembling in the members” (<i>tremor membrorum</I>) as a sign. Even more explicitly Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141) avers that the sign of Cain is a “trembling of the members like one who is mad or insane.” Petrus Comestor (d. c. 1178) identifies the sign, similarly, as a tremor or shaking of the head, and Peter the Chanter (d. 1197) combines this tremor about the head with a mind seized by fear. (Resnick, <i>Marks of Distinctions: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages</i>, 209)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.english.udel.edu/people/Pages/bio.aspx?i=43>James M. Dean</a> (b. 1943) further documents:
<blockquote>Early and medieval exegetes tended to imagine Cain’s mark as a physical stigma of some kind. Early Jewish commentary, perhaps influenced by descriptions of other divine signs such as the mark of Tau (Ezekiel 9:4, 6), postulated a letter from the tetragrammaton (Targum Psuedo-Jonathan) or the alphabet (Pirque Rabbi Eliezer 21) placed either on Cain’s forehead or his arm (Louis Ginzberg [1873-1953], <i>Legends of the Jews</I> 1.111-12). Some Christian writers, following the Septuagint of Genesis 4:14, which reads “trembling and grieving” where the Vulgate has “vagus et profugus” (“a fugitive and a vagabond”, King James Version), understand the mark as an involuntary shaking of the head (Peter Comestor [d. 1178], <i>Historia Scholastica: Liber Genesis</I> [Patrologia Latina 198:27]; Peter Riga [1140-1209], <i>Aurora</I>, 418). As <i>þe lyff of Adam and Eve</I> puts it: “And þo sette Crist a mark upon him, þat he waggede alway forþ wiþ his heved” (<i>Sammlung altenglischer Legenden</I> [1878], 224). In <i>Cursor Mundi</I> the Lord places writing on Cain so that others may “read” it “als clerk” (1178), and in the Cornish Creation, God makes the sign of omega (ω) on Cain’s forehead (1179), a mark which could resemble horns...From Cain’s curse, according to medieval tradition, arose the monstrous races—the Grendels, Calibans, anthropophagi, and Apeneck Sweeneys — thought to exist in inhospitable regions (John Block Friedman [b. 1934] [1981], 89). (<a href=http://www.baylorisr.org/about-isr/distinguished-professors/david-lyle-jeffrey/>David L. Jeffrey</a> [b. 1941], <i>A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature</I>, 481)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/akuruvilla/>Abraham Kuruvilla</a> updates:
<blockquote><i>Genesis Rabbah</I> 22:12 suggests, rather incredibly, that God gave Cain a dog that would accompany him in his wanderings, scaring off potential assailants! R.W.L. Moberly [b. 1952], working off the preposition “for” (ל, <i>l</I>, “sign <i>for</I> Cain”), rather than the expected “on” (על, <i>’l</I>, as in Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18, where signs are placed “on” bodies), thinks that the proverb-like saying “Whoever kills Cain is in danger of being avenged sevenfold” (Genesis 4:15) is, itself, the sign—a sign “for” Cain’s protection, rather than a sign “on” Cain’s person. In any case...the sign on Cain indicated his sin/guilt; but it also served as a token of God’s mercy upon the sinner—Cain was not to be killed in vengeance by anyone. Cain is banned, but he is still blessed: “[h]e leaves Gods presence, but not God’s protection.” <a href=http://www.tua.nl/index.php?paginaID=34>H.G.L. Peels</a> [b. 1956] notes the irony that “Yahweh wants to be the keeper of the man who did not want to be his brother’s keeper.” (Kuruvilla, <i>Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers</I>, 84)</blockquote>
There are no exact parallels to the mark of Cain though there are comparisons to be made. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) researches:
<blockquote>What could well be a direct parallel is found in Nuzi Tablets. Jacob J. Rabinowitz [b. 1928] sees a connection between the banishment and a sign, <a href=http://www.brill.com/vetus-testamentum>Vetus Testamentum</a> 11(1961) 55-59; Nuzi IV 369, 42 speaks of a condemnation: “It means banishment, excommunication.” An outline of the fate of the condemned is then given: “The procedure described in <i>ana ittišū</I> sounds very much like excommunication and the shaving (of the head) there like a sign of excommunication. There is perhaps an allusion to the sign of excommunication in Cain’s sign (Genesis 4:15),” p. 59. Pieter Middlekoop [1895-1973] thinks that one of the functions of the mark is to protect the person responsible from the consequences of the murder: he links it with Exodus 4:24-26 (<a href=http://www.ttc.edu.sg/csca/epub/seajt.htm>South East Asia Journal of Theology</a>, 8 [1966-67] 17-28). (Westermann, <i>Genesis 1-11 (Continental Commentary)</i>, 313)</blockquote>
Most interpreters have assumed that the mark is on Cain’s body. <a href=http://www.apu.edu/theology/faculty/jhartley/>John E. Hartley</a> (b. 1940) surmises:
<blockquote>The mark must have been visible so that anyone coming upon Cain would at once be aware of the protection Cain was under. This mark condemned and simultaneously protected Cain; whoever killed Cain would <b>suffer vengeance seven times over.</b> [Genesis 4:15] That is, the slayer would be judged to the fullest measure. (Hartley, <i>Genesis (New International Biblical Commentary)</I>, 84)</blockquote>
<a href=http://mwcollier.com/>M.W. Collier</a> rationalizes:
<blockquote>Placing a mark upon him implies the other inhabitants of their small world would be able to recognize it as having been placed by God. If not, then the marking of Cain would have served no purpose. Since the book implies that the mark had purpose, then we must assume the other people called to the same God. If they did not then thy would have not have any fear of retribution from Cain’s God. (Collier, <i>The Good Book? Chapter 1 Book 1 Genesis 1-50</I>, 29)</blockquote>
Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) asserts:
<blockquote>The mark that Yahweh gives Cain was, naturally, on Cain’s body. It belongs “to the realm of religious tattooing and stigmatization, which, widely dispersed, was also known to Semitic peoples” (Wilhelm Heitmüller [1869-1926], <i>Im Namen Jesu</I>, 174; Ezekiel 9:4; Isaiah 44:5; Leviticus 19:28; Deuteronomy 14:1f; Revelation 13:16f, 14:9; Galatians 6:17, etc.). According to the circumstances of the narrative, the mark of Cain was not, as the popular view maintains, a mark meant to designate Cain as a murderer (such as the haggard expression of the murderer) but a mark intended to protect him from murder (August Dillmann [1823-1894]). Whereof it consisted, the narrative...does not say. (Gunkel [translated by <a href=http://www.btsr.edu/about/staff-faculty/mark-edward-biddle/meet-dr-mark-biddle/>Mark E. Biddle</a> (b. 1957)], <i>Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies)</I>, 46-47)</blockquote>
Some have presumed that God places a letter on Cain like Hester Prynne, the protagonist in <a href=http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/>Nathaniel Hawthorne</a> (1804-1864)’s <i>Scarlet Letter</I> (1850).
<p><a href=http://chn.loyno.edu/religious-studies/bio/robert-k-gnuse>Robert Gnuse</a> (b. 1947) studies:
<blockquote>Many commentators suggest that the mark upon Cain was a tattoo, for that was the most logical mark on a person’s body in the ancient world. It is also suggested that the mark was on his face, perhaps his forehead, since that was the most common place in the ancient world to put a distinguishing mark. It was visible to a stranger, especially if the Kenite were garbed in such a way as to protect his body against the wind and sand of the wilderness. Elsewhere (Ezekiel 9:4) there are references to a protective mark placed upon the forehead. In later years such a protective mark was the letter <i>tau</I>, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Some authors suggest that the mark on Cain’s forehead was the <i>tau</I> (Wilhelm Vischer [1895-1988] 74-75; Alan Richardson [1905-1975] 85). In the two or three centuries before Jesus, the Hebrew letter <i>tau</I> was placed upon important religious manuscripts or in the margins of manuscripts next to especially significant verses, such as those which might contain the sacred name for God. The letter appears to protect something or highlight it as sacred. This would be true of both people and written manuscripts. The form of the <i>tau</I> that was used was written in an old Paleo-Hebrew script, not the <i>tau</I> used in the script of the Hebrew Bible (and learned dutifully by Jews and Christian seminarians when they study Hebrew). (Gnuse, <i>Misunderstood Stories: Theological Commentary on Genesis 1-11</I>, 166-67)</blockquote>
<p>There is an oft cited biblical parallel to a protective mark upon the head in the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 9:4-6). Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) compares:
<blockquote>Another Hebrew word for “sign,” <i>taw</I>, also functions as a symbol of identity. In his vision Ezekiel sees God’s executioners coming on the city. They are told to “put a mark” on those who truly grieve over the city’s sins (Ezekiel 9:4). When destruction comes those who bear the “mark” are to be spared (Ezekiel 9:6). The Hebrew word for “mark” is <i>taw</I>, which is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In the older Hebrew script it was shaped like an <i>X</I>. Some early Christian exegetes saw here an anticipation of the saving power of the cross, an interpretation which is apologetic and forced, though this Ezekiel passage does serve as a background for all the references to “marking” in the book of Revelation [Revelation 7:3, 9:4, 13:16-17, 14:1, 9, 17:5, 20:4, 22:4]. (Hamilton, <i>The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series)</I>, 235)</blockquote>
Many have compared the mark of Cain to a tattoo. In fact, Cain has even be viewed as an icon of such markings. <a href=http://www.unbc.ca/english/faculty>Karin Beeler</a> (b. 1963) documents:
<blockquote>In his book <i>I Love Mom: An Irreverent History of the Tattoo</I>, <a href=http://www.johnmaclachlangray.ca/>John Gray</a> [b. 1946] identifies Cain as the bearer of the first tattoo: “And the Lord set a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him” (Genesis 4:15)...According to Gray, God’s marking of Cain brands Cain as “the first rebel” (Gray 25). What is important about the marking of Cain is that the Biblical narrative links the concept of the tattoo to violence and to the marginalized status of the criminal. Cain’s tattoo functions as a sign of difference and resistance to the Law. The narrative of Cain’s murder and his ensuing outcast status are embedded in the visual power of the “sign,” which Gray has chosen to call a tattoo. Yet Cain’s tattoo also has an ambiguous, perhaps even a subversive, function, because when God the divine tattoo artist marked him, He not only marginalized him but also marked him as God’s “property” to protect him from harm. Thus Cain is still branded as belonging to someone; while this does not have the same resonance for a gang member or prisoner who might benefit from relations with another gang member or prisoner, the mark of identification serves as a way of signaling a kind of ownership. (Beeler, <i>Tattoos, Desire and Violence: Marks of Resistance in Literature, Film and Television</I>, 118)</blockquote>
Another prominent theory historically is that Cain is afflicted with habitual trembling. This premise is influenced by the Septuagint. <a href=http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/jacobyr/>Russell Jacoby</a> (b. 1945) traces:
<blockquote>The Septuagint, or Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated the curse of Cain as trembling and groaning. Early Christian writings adopted this interpretation, and shaking also became a mark of Cain. In a Christian text from the sixth century called <i>The Conflict of Adam and Eve</I>, Cain trembles from fear as he buries Abel in the earth. An angry God condemns Cain to perpetual trembling. “Then Cain trembled and became terrified; and through this sign did God make him an example before all the creation, as the murderer of his brother.” This idea has persisted virtually to the present, for instance in a twentieth-century Catholic Bible, which reprises an earlier commentary: “The more common opinion of the interpreters of holy writ supposes this mark [of Cain] to have been a trembling of the body.” The mark of Cain, then, consisted of two components, trembling and wandering. (Jacoby, <i>Bloodlust: On the Roots of Violence from Cain and Abel to the Present</I>, 84)</blockquote>
Ruth Mellinkoff (1924-2011) deduces:
<blockquote>That the mark of Cain was a trembling of Cain’s limbs (in general and not necessarily only his head) must have some early popular support, for we learn of it through its condemnation by Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1075-1129), the theologian who attempts to trounce all who accept such an interpretation. In his comments on the Genesis text Rupert emphatically denies that the trembling of the limbs was the mark of Cain. Rupert’s denial is of further interest because in it Rupert demonstrates a sophisticated interpretation of the grammar in Genesis 4:15 whereby Cain is the sign...<i>Posuitque Cain</I> [in] <i>signum</I>, meaning “made Cain [as] a sign.” Rupert, aware of the grammatical possibilities of the biblical passage, says that Cain became the sign of the Lord, thereby representing the Lord’s proclamation; and therefore Cain as the sign was the symbol of the ruler which must not be violated. (Melinkoff, <i>The Mark of Cain: An Art Quantum</I>, 51)</blockquote>
It cannot even be stated with certainty that the mark is actually on Cain’s person. Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) recognize:
<blockquote>What is the sign? It cannot be the so-called “sign of Cain” marking a murderer, for Cain was painfully blessed. The narrator leaves our questions unanswered and does not even indicate whether it is a sign on or for Cain. One might fill in with what it signifies, namely, life. (Kessler and Deurloo, <i>A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings</I>, 66)</blockquote>
J.G. Vos (1903-1983) notes:
<blockquote>The words “the Lord set a mark upon Cain” may be more accurately translated, “the Lord gave Cain a sign [Genesis 4:15].” The Hebrew says, literally, “the Lord gave a sign to Cain”; it does not say that the sign was “in” or “on” Cain. (Vos, <i>Genesis</I>, 93)</blockquote>
<a href=http://barrybandstra.com/me/>Barry L. Bandstra</a> (b. 1951) dissects:
<blockquote>לקין. Beneficiary > prepositional phrase: preposition + noun proper ms. Typically translated <i>on Qayin</I>, for example NRSV: <i>And the Lord put a mark on Cain</I> [Genesis 4:15]. This makes it sound like a tattoo. Yet the structure looks more like a Beneficiary than a Circumstance of location, which might be expected to use prep ב or על. (Bandstra, <i>Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text</I>, 261)</blockquote>
The belief that the Mark of Cain is not on his body has generated advocates. <a href=https://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/john-byron>John Byron</a> (b. 1967) surveys:
<blockquote>Those who do not think a visible mark is in the mind of the author include <a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/gordon-wenham>Gordon J. Wenham</a> [b. 1943] who follows P.A.H. de Boer [1910-1989] (<a href=http://www.boekencentrumtijdschriften.nl/index/77/><i>Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift</I></a> 31 [1942]:210) in suggesting that the sign is Cain’s name which sounds like “shall be punished.” “His very name hints at the promise of divine retribution of his attackers” (Wenham, 109). <a href=https://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/staff/profile/?id=671>R.W.L. Moberly</a> [b. 1952] (“The Mark of Cain—Revealed at Last?,” <a href=http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-research/research-publications/harvard-theological-review><I>Harvard Theological Review</I></a> 100 [207]:11-28) offers that God’s promise to Cain, “Whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance,” is the “non-corporeal sign and thus, the sign and the promise are not two different things, however closely related” (15). (Byron, <i>Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry</I>, 119-20)</blockquote>
Countless other non-corporeal theories have been posited. <a href=http://www.firstthings.com/featured-author/r-r-reno>R.R. Reno</a> (b. 1959) notes:
<blockquote>The text gives no clue as to the nature of the mysterious mark. An Aramaic version of Genesis, however, suggests that God lends Cain the power of his holiness as a protection against retribution: “Then the Lord traced on Cain’s face a letter of the great and glorious Name, so that anyone who would find him, upon seeing it on him, would not kill him” (Michael Maher [1933-2012] 1992:34)...This reading may seem fanciful, but the larger canonical context encourages an interpretation of the mark along these lines. (Reno, <i>Genesis (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)</I>, 108-09)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.english.udel.edu/people/Pages/bio.aspx?i=43>James M. Dean</a> (b. 1943) chronicles:
<blockquote>Some have interpreted the mark as a psychological punishment (Philo [20 BCE-50 CE]) or an unspecified “sign of perdition” (Hugh of St. Victor [1096-1141], <i>De Vanitate Mundi</I>, 3). Both St. Ambrose [337-397] (<i>De Cain</i>, 2.9.34-37) and St. Augustine [354-430] (<i>Contra Faustum</I> 12.13) allegorically equate Cain with the Jewish people and with the race which killed Christ. In <i>Beowulf</I> (1264) Cain is said to have been “marked by [or for his] murder” (<i>morphe gemearacod</I>). From such interpretations derived from the notion that the mark of Cain was his twisted personality, his despair, as Geoffrey Chaucer [1343-1400]’s Parson says, “of the mercy of Jhesu Crist” — in which he was linked to Judas (<i>Parson’s Tale</I>, 10.1015). Lord Byron [1788-1824]’s Cain cries out that his brow “burns” with the mark, “but naught to that which is within it” (<i>Cain</I>, 3.1.500-501). (<a href=http://www.baylorisr.org/about-isr/distinguished-professors/david-lyle-jeffrey/>David L. Jeffrey</a> [b. 1941], <i>A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature</I>, 481)</blockquote>
David W. Cotter records:
<blockquote>Ambrose [340-397] says that he is marked by his slavery to sin, that henceforth he belongs to sin as surely as any slave belongs to an owner: “Like a slave, Cain received a mark and he could not escape death. Thus is the sinner a slave to fear, a slave to desire, a slave to greed, a slave to lust, a slave to sin, a slave to anger. Though such a man appears to himself free, he is more a slave than if he were under tyrants.” (Cotter, <i>Genesis (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</I>, 45)</blockquote>
John H. Sailhamer (b. 1946) supposes that the mark of Cain is actually the city he builds (Genesis 4:17) and that it serves as a prototype for later cities of refuge (Numbers 35:9-15):
<blockquote>The major issues in this brief narrative are similar to those in the account of the “cities of refuge” (Numbers 35:9-34). In both narratives God provides protection against one who “avenges the blood” of another. The initial question addressed in these narratives is not whether one is guilty of the crimes of murder—that was to be settled by due process (Numbers 35:12). The issue that links the narratives about Cain and about the cities of refuge (in Numbers 35:9-34) is the need for protection of the accused against the threat of revenge. God’s intention in both texts is to put an end to further bloodshed: “Bloodshed pollutes the land” (Numbers 35:33)...The background of the cities of refuge may provide a much-needed clue to the meaning of the “sign” or “mark” (Genesis 4:15b) given Cain. The purpose of the “mark” (or “sign”) was to protect Cain from vengeance: “so that no one who found him would kill him.” Though it is sometimes assumed that a “mark” was “put on” Cain (cf. the early versions), the passage states only that a sign was given “to” or “for” Cain (<i>wayyāśem</i>...<i>l‘qayin ‘ôt</I>, literally, “and he [the LORD] appointed to Cain a sign”; cf. Genesis 21:13, 18, 27:37, 45:7, 9, 46:3 with Genesis 21:14, 44:21)...An important clue may lie in the structure of the narrative itself. After the mention of the sign (Genesis 4:15), the narrative continues with an account of Cain’s departure to the land of Nod, “east of Eden,” and his building of a city [Genesis 4:16-17]. The logic of the narrative suggests that Cain’s city is related to the sign given him by God. The parallels with texts relating to the cities of refuge...suggest that Cain’s sign may have been the safety he found in the building of a city. His city was a sign of his divine protection from anyone “who found him.” Like the cities of refuge, Cain’s city protected him from further bloodshed...The subsequent narrative gives further evidence of the link between Cain’s sign and the cities of refuge. Still in Lamech’s day, Cain’s city is portrayed as a place of refuge for the “manslayer” [Genesis 4:24]...Hence, within the narrative’s own logic, Cain’s city may be viewed as a “city of refuge” provided him by God as protection from blood revenge (see Deuteronomy 19:11-13). The broader importance the author attaches to the “city” Cain builds can be seen in the rest of the chapter. There one finds a detailed description of the progress and development of that city. In most respects the narrative is told from a positive perspective on city life. (<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/religious_studies/tremper-longman-iii.html>Tremper Longman III</a> [b. 1952] and <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=83406>David E. Garland</a> [b. 1947], <i>Genesis ~ Leviticus (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)</I>, 102-03)</blockquote>
Of the many proposals as to Cain’s mark, one has been deemed unequivocally wrong (both morally and exegetically): that Cain is given dark skin. <a href=http://paulkissling.com/>Paul J. Kissling</a> (b. 1957) prefaces:
<blockquote>In the history of interpretation the mark of Cain has sometimes been assumed to be black skin. Since black-skinned people were enslaved in large numbers, it was assumed that they must be under God’s judgment. This perplexing misreading warns us of the potential for the Bible to be abused to support whatever oppressive social practice we are guilty of. This reading makes no sense of the narrative. There is no reason to believe that the mark of Cain was some genetic change which affected future generations even if we assume it was a physical mark and not a sign. Even if it was some genetic change, it was presumably wiped out in the Flood [Genesis 6:1-8:22]. (Kissling, <i>Genesis, Volume 1 (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 228)</blockquote>
The theory took wings in antebellum <a href=http://www.usa.gov/>America</a>. <a href=http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dmg2/>David M. Goldenberg</a> (b. 1947) chronicles:
<blockquote>Several authors in antebellum <a href=http://www.usa.gov/>America</a> refer to a then-current idea that Cain was smitten with dark skin as punishment for killing his brother, Abel. To some, this was the unspecified “mark” that God put on Cain “so that no one who found him would kill him” (Genesis 4:15). David Walker [1785-1830], an African American writing in 1829, reflects this view common at the time when he says, “Some ignorant creatures hesitate not to tell us that we (the blacks) are the seed of Cain..and that God put a dark stain upon us, that we might be known as their slaves!!!” The black mark of Cain, although far less common than the curse of Ham, is nevertheless found among a number of antebellum writers from 1733 onward. Phillis Wheatley [1753-1784], the African American poet, in 1773 recorded this belief in verse: “Remember Christian, Negroes black as Cain/May be refined, and join the angelic train.” (Goldenberg, <i>The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam</I>, 178)</blockquote>
<a href=https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/colinkidd.html>Colin Kidd</a> (b. 1964) informs:
<blockquote>For many commentators, the mark of Cain...portended a...particular racial significance. Some, such as the author of <i>Clearer light</I>, an anonymous English tract of 1874 which dealt, among other things, with the problems of race in the scriptures, claimed that Cain was the primal ancestor of all black people: the mark upon Cain should be read as a racial transformation which included changes to the texture of his hair and the blackening of his skin. This author also maintained that at this time Adam and Eve had no other surviving children but, even if there had been, it would have been extremely unlikely that Cain had gone on to marry any of his sisters, not least because they would have been reluctant to marry their brother’s murderer. Therefore the compelling conclusion was that there had been two distinct racial creations of mankind, one distinct from Adam and Eve into whose body Cain had married...By contrast, John Overton (1764-1838), the English genealogist of Christ, had identified Cain as the father of the Chinese race, a people whose very high antiquity suggested that in their east Asian remoteness they had escaped the Deluge which had engulfed the rest of the known world in the age of Noah. This line persisted later in the nineteenth century in the influential work of Dominick McCausland [1806-1873]...Champions of black pride transformed the curse of Cain...In particular, the black nationalist leader Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) inverted the white racist version of the mark of Cain. Garvey argued that Adam and Eve had been black as had their sons Cain and Abel. The subsequent whiteness of Cain and his descendants – down to modern Europeans – was a punishment for sin. (Kidd, <i>The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000</I>, 34-35)</blockquote>
Though it gained traction in North America, the theory originated in the Rabbinic writings and gained prominence in Europe. <a href=http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dmg2/>David M. Goldenberg</a> (b. 1947) archives:
<blockquote>The Curse of Cain did not originate on <a href=http://www.usa.gov/>America</a> soil. A curse of blackness on Cain, from whom the Blacks are descended, is often noted in European literature of the seventeenth to nineteenth century. In England Thomas Peyton [1595-1626] referred to the black African as “the cursed descendant of Cain and the devil” in his <I>The Glasse of Time</I> published in 1620, and in 1785 Paul Erdmann Isert [1756-1789] more expansively recorded the view that the Black’s skin color “originated with Cain, the murderer of his brother, whose family were destined to have the black colour as a punishment.” In France the Curse is mentioned in a 1733 <i>Dissertation sur l’origine des nègres et des américains</I>, and is recorded by Jean-Baptiste Labat [1663-1738], the Dominican missionary and explorer...as also by Nicolas Bergier [1718-1790] in his <i>Dictionnaire Théologique</I> in 1789. It is also found in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Portuguese empire. (Goldenberg, <i>The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam</I>, 178-79)</blockquote>
The connection between race and Cain’s mark have been summarily discarded. C. Eric Lincoln (1924-2000) rejects:
<blockquote>Nowhere do the Scriptures state or even imply a divine intention to isolate Blacks from the dozens of races and ethnic group by relating them and <i>them only</I> to Cain in the Genesis story. The absurdity is further confounded because, according to Genesis, God put the mark on Cain to <i>protect</I> him rather than to set him up as a target (Genesis 4:15). (Lincoln, <i>Race, Religion, and the Continuing American Dilemma</I>, 150)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.drmigueldelatorre.com/>Miguel A. De La Torre</a> (b. 1958) elucidates:
<blockquote>A disturbing interpretation concerning Cain’s mark is its association with blackness. According to rabbinical tradition, Cain’s mark was him becoming black. Black people, as descendants of Cain’s line, became the children of sin and murder. But such a conclusion must assume that Cain was white before he was cursed with blackness. This view is not limited to the rabbinical text, but also becomes the religious foundation of white supremacy. Cain’s mark came to mean that servitude was the consequence of making Cain black—hence justifying slavery. If Cain was originally white, then so too were his parents, Adam and Eve; and since they were created in the image of God [Genesis 1:26], then God is also white. But...if God used the best soil to create Adam, and the richer the soil the blacker it is, would it not be reasonable to assume that Adam’s skin would resemble the ingredient used? So if Adam and Eve were black, as were their children Cain and Abel, then could not the mark just as easily be that God made Cain white? Obviously, we have no idea what the color of the first humans was, nor is it important. The biblical text is silent on this topic. It only remains important to those wishing to justify the supremacy of their own race. White supremacists have read their social context into the text and assumed the first humans were white. (De La Torre, <i>Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible</I>, 98-99)</blockquote>
In making the mark of Cain about race, sin is compounded.
<p>The exact nature of the mark of Cain will have to remain a question mark. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) concludes:
<blockquote>I agree with those scholars who refuse to give any answer to this question. This refusal can be justified; we are dealing here with a primeval narrative. This means in the present case that the narrator is dealing with an event that is beyond the present, where things happen differently from the world of time with which we are familiar. He did not mean a mark familiar and demonstrable to his contemporaries; he had no interest at all how this mark was to be presented. It has meaning only in the context which the narrative intends to describe. We must acknowledge that even the narrator himself had no definite idea of the form of the sign. (Westermann, <i>Genesis 1-11 (Continental Commentary)</i>, 314)</blockquote>
Edwin M. Good (b. 1928) agrees:
<blockquote>What was the “mark of Qayin” [Genesis 4:15]? No one knows; I certainly do not, nor do I wish to. “Mark” often means a sign of something, sometimes a miraculous portent, sometimes merely a banner. And a sign or mark is as close as we will ever get. It seems another instance where the storytellers portray Yahweh as improvising, responding with an on-the-spot solution to a problem he had not previously considered. In fact, Yahweh does not say that the mark will prevent Qayin from being killed, only that if he is killed, vengeance will be sevenfold. (Good, <i>Genesis 1-11: Tales of the Earliest World</I>, 53)</blockquote>
Whatever the sign it serves multiple purposes. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) catalogs:
<blockquote>God not only says something, he does something—he puts a <i>mark</I> (<i>’ôt</I>) on Cain. Unfortunately, we do not know exactly what this mark was or where it was placed. We do know that the <i>’ôt</I> can function in three ways. First, it can be a sign of proof or evidence of God’s power (Exodus 7:3, the plagues; Exodus 4:8, 9, 17, 28, 30, signs intended to show that God has sent Moses to Egypt and that the Israelites should believe in him). Second, it can be a symbol, suggesting something else by virtue of resemblance or conventional association. Thus, Ezekiel’s sun-dried brick with a relief drawing of Jerusalem under siege is a “sign” for the house of Israel (Ezekiel 4:3). This function of sign is common with the prophets. Third, it can be a sign of cognition, awakening knowledge of something in the observer. This kind of sign includes mnemonic signs (e.g., the rainbow after the Flood, Genesis 9:12, 13, 17; the eating of unleavened bread, Exodus 13:9) and identity signs, as here. The sign identifies Cain as one who is especially protected by God. Parallels to this function of sign are Exodus 12:13 (the blood on the doors at Passover which identifies the occupants); Genesis 1:14 (the heavenly lights which identify time periods); Numbers 2:2 (the banners in the Israelite camp which identify the various families); Joshua 2:12 (the sign which identifies Rahab’s house). (Hamilton, <i>The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series)</I>, 234-35)</blockquote>
Whatever its nature, the mark of Cain serves its purpose: Cain is not murdered. His line continues and his family thrives (Genesis 4:17-24). Cain is a marked man. But he is marked for life, not death. And he is marked as such for life.
<p>How do you think that the mark of Cain manifested itself? Does the institution of the sign indicate that Cain’s fears are justified? Who might kill Cain? Why does Cain need a sign; is God’s word insufficient? With the population presumably small, would God’s edict not be public knowledge? What is the purpose of the mark of Cain; is the mark more to deter potential assailants or embolden Cain? What is the sign’s modern parallel; is the tattoo a fair comparison? Were you God, where would you place Cain’s sign? Does it matter what the mark is; would knowing its nature change the way the text is read? Were you Cain, what safeguard would you want to put your fears at ease? Does the mark of Cain represent justice; should God have spared Cain’s life? Given the choice, would you pick exile or death? Does the act of murder always stay with the murderer?
<p>The mark of Cain has taken on a negative connotation through the centuries. Andrew Willet (1562-1621) typifies:
<blockquote>“God set a mark upon Cain [Genesis 4:15],” but not, as some read, that God made Cain to <i>be</i> a sign or mark. Rather, God set some visible mark upon Cain, whether it was a horrible trembling and shaking of the whole body...or an exceeding shame and confusion, in that he ran from place to place to hide himself; or some visible mark set upon his face, as Nicholas of Lyra [1270-1349] thinks. (Some Hebrews think it was a horn on his forehead; some, a letter; some, that a dog led him about; but these are human imaginings.) Certainly, whatever it was, it was a sign of God’s wrath and not, as Josephus [37-100] thinks, a token that God was appeased by Cain’s sacrifice and forgave the punishment of fratricide: for if God did not accept this sacrifice before, how much less would he after? (<a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jthompson/>John L. Thompson</a> [b. 1952], <i>Genesis 1-11 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture)</I>, 204)</blockquote>
<a href=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Alter/Alter.html>Robert Alter</a> (b. 1935) corrects:
<blockquote><i>A mark</I>. It is of course a mark of protection, not a stigma as the English idiom, “mark of Cain,” suggests. (Alter,<i>Genesis: Translation and Commentary</I>, 18)</blockquote>
Though the mark protects Cain (Genesis 4:15), it represents a divine balance of grace and judgment. There are consequences to Cain’s actions. But there is also mercy. John Barth (b. 1930) quips:
<blockquote>A completely ambivalent mark. Nobody can touch you, but everybody sure does know you’re a criminal. (<a href=http://billmoyers.com/>Bill Moyers</a> [b. 1934], <i>Genesis: A Living Conversation</I>, 77)</blockquote>
Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) pronounces:
<blockquote>We hear in the narrative the voice of both law and grace. Sin cannot be ignored and justified. Cain must pay a penalty for his actions. But the God who pronounces the sentence also makes available to the criminal his protection and concern that he too not become a victim of violence. Cain is banned and blessed. He is a marked man, in a positive sense. He leaves God’s presence but not God’s protection. What God would later say about Mount Sinai—“whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death” (Exodus 19:12)—he first said about Cain. (Hamilton, <i>The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series)</I>, 235)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.unf.edu/bio/N00010088/>A. Samuel Kimball</a> (b. 1959) scrutinizes:
<blockquote>The sign both condemns him as a murderer and protects him from being murdered in turn; it blesses him with freedom from the very aggression he has directed against his brother. By virtue of the sign God places over Cain’s being, Cain lives as a witness to the fact that the gift of life is, in Jacques Derrida [1930-2004]’s terms, a gift of death. In his person he embodies the message that there can be no pure blessing, no pure birthright, that there can be no life that does not entail the sacrifice of other life, and that whatever blessing can come to pass must be measured against the lost futures which, by definition are beyond imagination. In short, he incarnates twice over the divided nature of all hailing: the hailing by which a (potential) subject is interpellated either into or out of existence; and the hailing by which each living person nevertheless bears the trace of the other life or lives that might have been interpellated into being if this person had not. (Kimball, <i>The Infanticidal Logic of Evolution and Culture</I>, 167)</blockquote>
Like his father, Adam (Genesis 3:24), the son is exiled (Genesis 4:12, 14). In both cases, there is also a tangible sign left as a reminder. <a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/gordon-wenham>Gordon J. Wenham</a> (b. 1943) connects:
<blockquote>As the clothing given to Adam and Eve after the fall (Genesis 3:21) served to remind them of their sin and God’s mercy, so does the mark placed on Cain: “As a protective device against potential enemies it may stay death; in that sense, the anticipated punishment is softened. But at the same time it serves as a constant reminder of Cain’s banishment, his isolation from other people” (George W. Coats [1936-2006]). (Wenham, <i>Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary)</I>, 65)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton>John H. Walton</a> (b. 1952) concurs:
<blockquote>In Genesis 4:15, the provision of a sign/mark treats Cain comparably to how his parents were treated. The mark placed on Cain plays a parallel role in this narrative to the garments provided for Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:21. These acts of grace serve as God’s protective provision for the new environment. In both cases it is God’s response to their recognition of the vulnerability that resulted from their offense (Adam and Eve had used fig leaves to try to cover themselves [Genesis 3:7]; Cain complained that he would be killed [Genesis 4:14]). Just as it did not matter where God got the animal skin or what it looked like [Genesis 3:21], it is of little importance what the sign is like and how it functions. In both cases the importance of the gift is in the One who gave it. (Walton, <i>Genesis (NIV Application Commentary)</I>, 265-66)</blockquote>
Ronald Youngblood (b. 1931) refocuses:
<blockquote>Although we cannot be sure of the details, we can certainly marvel that the Lord would promise to protect so violent a man as Cain. (Youngblood, <i>The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary</I>, 65)</blockquote>
God limits the death toll. <a href=http://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/Nelson>Richard D. Nelson</a> (b. 1945) comments:
<blockquote>The theme that humans make bad decisions that have a potential to do great harm will reappear in the stories of Cain (Genesis 4:1-16), the prelude to the flood (Genesis 6:1-8) and Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). Dangerous human potential will again need to be controlled, by a mark on Cain [Genesis 4:15], by limits on human life span [Genesis 6:3], and by language confusion [Genesis 11:7]. (Nelson, <i>From Eden to Babel: An Adventure in Bible Study</I>, 18)</blockquote>
God’s limiting humanity’s destructiveness becomes a pattern. Wolfhart Pannenberg (b. 1928) detects:
<blockquote>In the paradise story death is the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit [Genesis 2:17], but the entry of death is delayed, so that what we now have is a limited life span. Similarly Cain, after murdering his brother, is protected though his life forfeited (Genesis 4:15). The biblical history offers a series of examples of God’s limiting the destructive results of the sins of his people. In view of the universality of sin, the rareness of manifest outbreaks of evil is by no means self-evident. It is the consequence of God’s gracious sparing and protecting, and human ingratitude for this in the form of taking for granted the good things that happen is yet another expression of sin. (Pannenberg, <i>Systematic Theology, Volume 2</I>, 238)</blockquote>
God’s continual care for sinning humans stands in stark contrast to other ancient deities. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) contrasts:
<blockquote>The Babylonians believed that when a man sinned his god abandoned him, allowing demons to enter his body. Although Cain was a murderer, God did not desert him but protected him with his sign as he wandered [Genesis 4:15]. Spilling Abel’s blood on the ground caused it to be cursed and all growth stopped [Genesis 4:11-12], as in the Ugaritic <i>Tale of Aqhat</i>,...15th-14th centuries B.C., when the goddess Anat had young Prince Aqhat slain in order to have his strong bow: “...through his death...the [fr]uits of summer are withered, the ear [in] its husk...Blasted are the buds.” In Aqhat’s tale, his sister Paghat swore, “I’ll slay the slayer of my brother, [Destroy] the [de]stroyer of my [si]bling.” Cain’s divine protection was a Biblical indictment against such blood feuds in which a family or tribe member sought to avenge the death of a kinsman. (<a href=http://www.adafeyerick.com/>Ada Feyerick</a> [b. 1928], <i>Genesis: World of Myths and Patriarchs</I>, 67)</blockquote>
Perhaps the mark of Cain is left ambiguous in part to keep the focus in its proper place: on God’s activity. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) expounds:
<blockquote>The narrative surprisingly does not conclude with this picture of the condemned murderer. Indeed, one must say that only now does it reach its most important point: Cain does not have the last word in this story, but rather God, who now places Cain’s forfeited life under strict protection. Yahweh obviously placed the sign on Cain’s body [Genesis 4:15]; the narrator appears to be thinking of a tattoo or something similar. This sign, however, is not to disgrace him but to refer to that mysterious protective relationship in which Cain would henceforth be held by God. The conclusion of the story, according to which Cain then goes forth “away from the presence of the Lord [Genesis 4:16],” completely sharpens the riddle of his future existence: because of his murder he is cursed by separation from God and yet incomprehensibly guarded and supported by God’s protection. Even his life belongs to God, and he does not abandon it. (Von Rad, <i>Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 107)</blockquote>
The mark of Cain is far from a curse; it serves to safeguard the murderer’s life. It is not punitive, but rather protective. <a href=http://www.aei.org/scholar/leon-r-kass/>Leon R. Kass</a> (b. 1939) remarks:
<blockquote>The mark of Cain—wrongly regarded as the sign of murderous guilt—is, in fact, meant to protect Cain’s life in the wilderness, and to obviate the need for settled defense [Genesis 4:15]. As a result of this solicitous speech, Cain may at this moment glimpse the difference between a god to whom one sacrifices vegetables and the God who takes notice of, and who is outraged by, bloodshed (and who, at least for now, provides even for murderers). But moved more by dread than by reverence, Cain does not draw the most pious conclusion. Reassured but only temporarily, Cain sets out on his travels [Genesis 4:16]. (Kass, <i>The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis</I>, 144)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.upsem.edu/academics/faculty_staff/towner_dr_and_mrs_w_sibley_sib_jane/>W. Sibley Towner</a> (b. 1933) adds:
<blockquote>The act of grace occurs. God puts the mark on Cain, the mark of both guilt and protection [Genesis 4:15]. It will ward off anyone who would take vengeance on Cain. Anyone who would snap the link between the Eden of the past and the Eden of the future, or who would cut off human evolution before it can begin will be warned and deterred. (Towner, <i>Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion)</I>, 64)</blockquote>
The sign’s positive attributes can be seen in the term for the marker. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) studies:
<blockquote>Within the context of the close-knit fabric of Genesis, the word “sign” picks up one of the threads of creation—the lights in the heavens, which were “signs” (Genesis 1:14)—and “sign” links up also with the later sign in the heavens, the covenant rainbow (Genesis 9:13). As the sign of the rainbow moved beyond sin, indicating peace, so, in some way, did the sign on Cain; it did not allow sin to be the final word. Thus the creational theme, already noticed in Cain’s birth [Genesis 4:1], now continues. God is giving Cain a further element of creation, some form of second birth...In later centuries this positive sign was turned into something negative—“the mark of Cain,” a way of identifying an alleged criminal. But the original idea was positive, and it contained an implicit protest against blood-feud—the practice, found especially around the Mediterranean, of revenge through death, thus provoking at times a cycle of avenging deaths. (Brodie, <i>Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary</I>, 154)</blockquote>
God is and has always been gracious. <a href=http://www.pts.edu/Faculty_Emeriti>Donald E. Gowan</a> (b. 1929) proclaims:
<blockquote>It was not the New Testament that first taught that God loves the unlovable. Cain is scarcely an endearing character, moving as he has from anger to violence to resentment, yet God’s judgment upon him is mixed with mercy (Genesis 4:15). It is not God’s intention that one killing should produce more. He uses the oath of a family avenger of blood (Judges 8:18-21; II Samuel 2:22-23, 3:26-30; II Kings 14:5), but here as a guardian who intends to prevent bloodshed rather than as an executioner. We are given not one clue as to the nature of the mark, and much time has been wasted on pure speculation as to what it might have been; indeed, since nothing suggests that anyone but Cain has ever borne it, the question is completely irrelevant. Its only meaning as the story is told is as a sign of God’s grace, even grace towards the archetype of violent mistreatment of one’s brothers and sisters. Here as elsewhere we are assured that even in the midst of God’s just judgment of our sins he intervenes to save us from the worst possible consequences we might bring upon ourselves. (Gowan, <i>Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel (International Theological Commentary)</I>, 72)</blockquote>
Derek Kidner (1913-2008) praises:
<blockquote>God’s concern for the innocent (Genesis 4:10) is matched only by His care for the sinner. Even the querulous prayer of Cain had contained a germ of entreaty; God’s answering pledge together with His <i>mark</I> or <i>sign</I> (the same word as in Genesis 9:13, 17:11) – not a stigma but a safe-conduct – is almost a covenant, making Him virtually Cain’s <i>gō’ēl</I> or protector; <i>cf</I>. II Samuel 14:14b...It is the utmost that mercy can do for the unrepentant. (Kidner, <i>Genesis (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries)</I>, 76)</blockquote>
Though exiled (Genesis 4:12), God’s marks forever attaches the murderer to the deity. <a href=http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/celia-sinclair/>Celia Brewer Marshall</a> (b. 1954) avows:
<blockquote>God marks Cain as God’s own forever. It is a permanent mark of God’s guardianship and custody. While hardly a badge of honor, it is incorrect to read the “mark of Cain” as folklore has mistakenly interpreted it. It is neither a bull’s-eye for hit men nor a brand for shame. The mark is a sign of God’s continued protection and mercy, like the clothing of Genesis 3:21. God is in effect saying, “This mark tells the world you are mine. If anyone comes after you, he’ll have to answer to me.” (Marshall, <i>Genesis (Interpretation Bible Studies)</I>, 25)</blockquote>
André LaCocque (b. 1927) theorizes:
<blockquote>Everywhere he goes Cain is carrying the mark of God. Not a tattoo; not a branded stamp; not a tribal emblem (at most, something like Zeus’s aegis); but rather perhaps, just his humanity, in the image of God. An interesting Misrashic reading of Genesis 4:15 (in <i>Genesis Rabbah</I> 22) has God setting Cain in person as a sign of warning not to kill him or as a sign addressed to all people willing to repent. From a syntactical point of view, this Midrashic translation is not without foundation; the Wilhelm Gesenius [1786-1842]-Emil Kautzsch [1841-1910]-A.E. Cowley [1861-1931] grammar refers to the construction of Isaiah 5:20. (LaCocque, <i>Onslaught against Innocence: Cain, Abel, and the Yahwist</I>, 67-68)</blockquote>
Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) sermonizes:
<blockquote>Even Cain is not altogether forsaken in the land of Nod. Even about him God throws a circle of protection and put upon him a sign, the mark of Cain, which makes him taboo [Genesis 4:15]. Even the guilt-laden man remains God’s property. He too is given room to repent...In centuries past the judge who had condemned a murderer to death would partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with him before his execution. By doing this he was saying to him, “You poor, lost sinner, whom we are about to do to death, are nevertheless something totally different from what we human beings see in you. You are not <i>merely</I> a man who has been branded with the curse of society; you are still part of another, invisible order, that can grant you a grace and pardon over which we human beings have no control. You bear the mysterious mark of Cain that makes you the property of Another—just as we judges are the property of that Other and therefore stand in an ultimate solidarity with you.” (Thielicke, <i>How the World Began: Sermons on the Creation Story</I>, 227-28)</blockquote>
The sign is not named nor described. This is good. This way the sign does not detract from its own meaning: God is just yet manages to parlay the grace that the murderer did not.
<p>Do you have positive or negative associations with the mark of Cain? Should the mark put Cain at ease or be a perpetual reminder of his sin? Where else do grace and judgment intertwine? When has a sign detracted from its own message? What other marks are you familiar with? Are you marked by God? If so, how?
<p>“It is mercy, not justice or courage or even heroism, that alone can defeat evil.” - <a href=http://www.peterkreeft.com/home.htm>Peter J. Kreeft</a> (b. 1937), <i>The Philosophy of <a href=http://www.tolkiensociety.org/>[J.R.R.] Tolkien</a> [1892-1973]: The Worldview Behind the Lord of the Rings</I>, p. 217Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-1923227949484311152014-05-02T15:00:00.000-07:002014-05-02T15:00:00.164-07:00Getting Straight on Straight St. (Acts 9:11)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eTSzK50WBQA/U2Jh70Hv_tI/AAAAAAAAI1s/Pfj_gU0zzL4/s1600/StraightStreet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149.333" width="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eTSzK50WBQA/U2Jh70Hv_tI/AAAAAAAAI1s/Pfj_gU0zzL4/s320/StraightStreet.jpg" /></a></div><b>On which street in Damascus was Saul of Tarsus staying after his conversion? The Street called Straight (Acts 9:11)</b>
<p>Paul, at the time known as Saul, has a life changing encounter with the risen Christ while en route to Damascus to persecute Christians (Acts 9:1-19). Saul is stopped in his tracks when a “light from heaven” blinds him (Acts 9:3-9). This story is told three times in the book of Acts (Acts 9:1-19, 22:4-16, 26:9-18). In the first telling, a Christian named Ananias is given very specific directions in a vision as to Saul’s whereabouts in Damascus so that he might intercede on behalf of the blinded fanatic (Acts 9:11).
<blockquote>And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, (Acts 9:11 NASB)</blockquote>
With each detail the instructions become more explicit until God finally drops the bombshell of the name of the man whom Ananias is seeking (Acts 9:11). Saul is presumably the last person Ananias wishes to see. After all, before being blinded, Saul was bound to eliminate Christians, in this case Ananias and his church family (Acts 9:1-2). In supplying these specific instructions God leaves little room for doubt: Ananias is asked to track down the man hunting him.
<p>In this vision, Ananias is given precise instructions. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) informs:
<blockquote>In <i>The Beginnings of Christianity</I> 4.102 it is pointed out that if a vision of this kind is to be given at all it must be given with all the necessary detailed directions; they are required on both natural and supernatural grounds. It is inferred that the names of the street and of Paul’s host are not to be taken as conveying an old tradition. It is however fair to remark that Acts 9:9 required a continuation; Paul could hardly be left lying by the roadside. The narrative makes a connected whole. Colin J. Hemer [1930-1987] (226) refers to addresses, or directions, in papyrus letters. (Barrett, <i>Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 153)</blockquote>
The physical locations in the book of Acts have often been neglected by scholars. <a href=http://www.matthewskinner.org/>Matthew L. Skinner</a> (b. 1968) attends:
<blockquote>Although nearly all narrative critics note the potential for literary settings to shape readers’ understandings of a narrative, attention to particular settings in Luke’s two-volume work has been meager. The vast diversity of places in which events occur in Acts—both general (e.g., Jerusalem [Acts 1:12, 4:5, 8:25, 9:26, 28, 11:2, etc.], Iconium [Acts 13:51, 14:1, 21], Athens [Acts 17:15, 16], and Rome [Acts 28:14, 16]) and more specifically localized sites (e.g., a eunuch’s chariot [Acts 8:28], Judas’s house on Straight Street in Damascus [Acts 9:11], and the Jerusalem temple [Acts 2:46, 3:1, 3, 8, 10, 5:21, etc.]—brings this inattention into bold relief. On the one hand, the general lack of descriptive detail about places in biblical literature may explain why biblical scholars interested in narrative criticism emphasize plot and character at the expense of setting. On the other hand, some of this inattention derives from the fact that literary theory has not provided biblical scholars with the theoretical foundations and methodological models needed to analyze setting. Many eminent literary theorists give disproportionately little notice to setting in their work on narrative. None of this, however, must mean that the role of a setting in biblical narrative is minimal or rightly dismissed by narrative critics. (Skinner, <i>Locating Paul: Places of Custody As Narrative Settings in Acts 21-28</I>, 3-4)</blockquote>
In this scene, Saul is situated on the “street called straight” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), the “street which is called Straight” (ASV, KJV), “Straight Street” (CEV, NIV, NLT) or “Straight Avenue” (MSG). The Voice modernizes the text, reading “Straight Boulevard” (<a href=http://www.chrisseay.net/>Chris Seay</a> (b. 1971), <i>The Dust Off Their Feet: Lessons from the First Church</I>, 41).
<p>J.A. Alexander (1809-1860) defines:
<blockquote><i>Street</I>, a Greek word corresponding to the Latin <i>vicus</I>, and denoting properly a lane of alley, as opposed to a wide street or broad way...This is the only street named in the New Testament. (Alexander, <i>Acts of the Apostles (Geneva Series of Commentaries)</I>, 362)</blockquote>
<a href=http://archives.sbts.edu/special-collections/archibald-thomas-robertson-papers/>A.T. Robertson</a> (1863-1934) adds:
<blockquote><b>To the street</b> [<i>epi tēn rhumēn</i>]...A run way (from [<i>rheō</I>, to run) between the houses. So were the narrow lanes or alleys called streets and finally in later Greek the word is applied to streets even when broad. (Robertson, <i>Word Pictures in the New Testament: Acts</I>, 119)</blockquote>
Straight Street is an example of the famed Roman roads. <a href=https://www.facebook.com/stephen.kyeyune>Stephen Kyeyune</a> (b. 1959) comments:
<blockquote>Most probably this was one of the highways that were constructed by the Romans in the empire. The Romans were the greatest road maker[s] in the world. In over five centuries they built 50,000 miles of high-quality roads and 320,000 miles of back roads. (Kyeyune, <i>The Acts of the Apostles: The Acts of the Holy Spirit</I>, 260)</blockquote>
“Straight” is not only descriptive but the name of the street (Acts 9:11). C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) discerns:
<blockquote>τὴν καλουμένην means that Εὐθειαν is a name, not a mere description. (Barrett, <i>Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 153)</blockquote>
Though the street name is uncreative it is descriptive and distinctive. A straight road was a rarity in the ancient world. <a href=http://archives.sbts.edu/special-collections/archibald-thomas-robertson-papers/>A.T. Robertson</a> (1863-1934) remarks:
<blockquote>Most of the city lanes were crooked like the streets of <a href=http://www.cityofboston.gov/>Boston</a> (old cow-paths, people say), but this one still runs “in a direct line from the eastern to the western gate of the city” (Marvin Vincent [1834-1922]). Since the ancients usually rebuilt on the same sites, it is probable that the line of the street of that name today is the same, though the actual level has been much raised. Hence the identification of the house of Ananias and the house of Judas are very precarious [Acts 9:11]. (Robertson, <i>Word Pictures in the New Testament: Acts</I>, 119)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/>Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) concurs:
<blockquote>Most streets in pre-Hellenistic cities would be winding, narrow, and easy to become lost in; such cities grew haphazardly, in contrast to the ideal of Hellenistic urban planning, where streets crossed the straight main street at right angles. Though Damascus was one of the empire’s oldest cities, its construction on relatively even ground facilitated its transformation to the newer standards of Greek and Roman design. The spacing of streets reflects this pattern: east-west streets lie more than “300 feet (100 meters) apart,” with north-south streets “about 150 feet (45 meters) apart.” (Keener, <i>Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28)</I>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/>Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) envisions:
<blockquote>This street is still a major road in the city (F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] 1990:237). It runs east and west in the eastern portion of the old city and is known tody as Derb el-Mustaqim, although its direction has changed slightly since that time. It was known to have had major halls with colonnades and two great city gates at each end, making it a ‘fashionable” street (Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] 1987:323). It was fifty feet wide (Hilary Le Cornu [b. 1959] and <a href=http://www.netivyah.org/about/joseph-shulam/>Joseph Shulam</a> [b. 1946] 2003:497). (Bock, <I>Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 360)</blockquote>
<a href=http://robertschullerjr.com/>Robert A. Schuller</a> (b. 1954) depicts:
<blockquote>The ancient city of Damacus, in Syria, due north of Israel, had a central artery running through it called Straight Street. It was rare for an ancient city to have such a street. Most of the streets, especially in cities like Jerusalem that were razed and rebuilt scores of times throughout history, were narrow and crooked, not unlike the streets in some modern cities. But Damascus’ Straight Street ran from one side of the city to another, one hundred feet wide with the equivalent of a modern sidewalk along each side. ( Schuller, <i>Walking in Your Own Shoes: Discover God’s Direction for Your Life</I>, 71-72)</blockquote>
Damascus’ Straight Street is likely the result of advances in city planning. Paul Barnett (b. 1935) explains:
<blockquote>Damascus was located on the fringe between the fertile belt and the Arabian desert. An ancient settlement, Damascus passed through many hands before coming into the orbit of the Hellenistic kingdoms following Alexander [356-323 BCE]’s conquests. The city was refounded along Hellenistic lines, on a square grid according to the planning theories of Hippodamus of Miletus [498-408 BCE], which explains the reference to a “street called straight” (Acts 9:11). (Barnett, <i>The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years</I>, 20)</blockquote>
Straight Street is typically presumed to be one of Damascus’ major thoroughfares. <a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/stoussaint/>Stanley D. Toussaint</a> (b. 1928) introduces:
<blockquote>It was one of the two parallel streets that ran from the western wall to the eastern wall. (<a href=http://www.walvoord.com/>John F. Walvoord</a> [1910-2002] and <a href=http://www.dts.edu/read/roy-zuck-tribute/>Roy B. Zuck</a> [1932-2013], <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament</I>, 376)</blockquote>
William J. Larkin (1945-2014) relates:
<blockquote>Ananias should proceed to the main east-west thoroughfare of Damascus, <i>Straight Street</I>. With great porches and gates at each end and colonnades for commerce running along each side, this fashionable address would be as well known in its day as Regent Street in <a href=http://www.visitlondon.com/>London</a> or Fifth Avenue in <a href=http://www1.nyc.gov/>New York</a> is today. (Larkin, <i>Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary)</I>, 142)</blockquote>
The <i>Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary</I> locates:
<blockquote>This street, the only one identified by name in the New Testament (Acts 9:11), was located in Damascus, a city within the boundaries of Syria but belonging politically to the Decapolis. The city obtained its freedom from Rome shortly after Christ’s death and was under an Arabian ruler during the period covered by Acts 9:1-31...By current standards, Straight Street (also referred to as <i>Via Recta</I>) was probably a lane or alley. (<a href=http://www2.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/memorial/JDDouglas/jddouglas.htm>J.D. Douglas</a> [1922-2003], Merrill C. Tenney [1904-1985] and Moisés Silva [b. 1945], <i>Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary</I>, 1397)</blockquote>
A Straight Street still exists in modern-day Damascus. <a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/>Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) reveals:
<blockquote>This street remains today in the eastern section of Damascus’s Old City and is called Derb el-Mustaqim. Jack Finegan [1908-2000] surveys the remains: “The main east-west street, the Roman <i>decumanus maximus</I> and the “street called Straight” of Acts 9:11, is plainly recognizable in the present Midhat pasha and Bab Sharqi streets, which run directly through the Inner city, parallel to the Barada River, for a distance of nearly 1 mile (1,600 meters). In Roman times this street was 50 feet (15 meters) wide and bordered with colonnades, consisting of two rows of Corinthian columns on either side.” (Keener, <i>Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28)</I>)</blockquote><a href=http://www.tsm.edu/faculty_profiles/the_rev_dr_peter_walker>P.W.L. Walker</a> (b. 1961) updates:
<blockquote>The main street within the Old City is still called “Straight” – just as it was when Paul lodged in the ‘house on Straight Street’ (Acts 9:11)...Damascus’ <b>Straight Street</b> (or the <i>Via Recta</I> was simply an example of the east-west street found in many ancient cities, built on what is known as the Hippodamian plan (named after the man who redesigned Athens’ harbour-town on Piracus in the 400s BC). Here in Damascus, this Straight Street had been recently refurbished as a splendid colonnaded thoroughfare, with a width of 27 yards (25 meters) – something hard to imagine as you pass through the confined and covered <i>souks</I> now constructed along this street at the western end. (Walker, <i>In the Steps of Saint Paul: An Illustrated Guide to Paul’s Journeys</I>, 26-27)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/>Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) details:
<blockquote>The eastern city gate (the Bab Sharqi, the Sun Gate or East Gate), which opens to the street, had three arches. Of the seven Roman gates, only this one, probably dating to the second century C.E. in its current form, remains. It has a large central entrance flanked by two smaller ones; the central entrance opened onto the street, 13.68 meters wide, and the other entrances led to sidewalks beside the street. Two arches to the west suggest a minor directional shift; if this was Straight Street, it was not really straight. One of the arches, about 2,000 feet (600 meters) west of the East Gate and roughly halfway along the street, probably commemorated Pompey’s conquest and hence was standing in Paul’s day. (Keener, <i>Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28)</I>)</blockquote>
More specifically, Paul is convalescing at the house of a Judas on Straight Street (Acts 9:11). Nothing is known of this Judas. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) remarks:
<blockquote>Judas (the name is a common one) is quite unknown. He was presumably a Jew; Paul’s residence with him may have been on a purely commercial basis, but he may possibly have been a local Christian. (Barrett, <i>Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary)</I>, 153)</blockquote>
Some have suggested that Judas is the host of a house church. This is highly unlikely. <a href=http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/people/staff/academic/adams/index.aspx>Edward Adams</a> (b. 1963) discusses:
<blockquote>Roger W. Gerhing [b. 1950] infers that Judas’s house is the meeting place of a ‘house church’ in Damascus. He writes, “Concrete memories of the conversion of Paul before Damascus, the disciple by the name of Ananias (Acts 9:10-19a), the explicit mention of the house of Judas on Straight Street (Acts 9:11), and the large number of disciples in Damascus (Acts 9:2, 12) are all reasons to believe that a fairly large congregation might have existed there that could have met in the house of Judas.”...But these data hardly provide support for such a conclusion. Luke gives no indication that Judas is a believer let alone a ‘house-church’ host. While Ananias is introduced as ‘a disciple’ [Acts 9:10], no such descriptor is applied to Judas. As C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] states, “Paul’s residence with him many have been on a purely commercial basis.” The manner in which Ananias is directed to Judas’s house suggests that the two are not known to each other. Were Judas the implied host of such a large congregation, one might expect Ananias to find reassurance in the fact that he is hosting Saul. But the information that Saul is to be found in Judas’s house does nothing to alleviate Ananias’s trepidation at the prospect of meeting the persecutor. Judas may have gone on to become a convert to ‘the Way’ and his house may have been a meeting place for believers in Damascus, but of such developments Luke tells us nothing. (Adams, <i>The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses?</I>, 61-62)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/clinton_arnold/>Clinton E. Arnold</a> (b. 1958) supposes:
<blockquote>Judas is presumably not a Christian, but Paul’s Jewish host with whom he has made arrangements prior to leaving Jerusalem. (Arnold, <i>Acts (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 77)</blockquote>
This would certainly challenge Ananias further: he would not only be visiting a persecutor, albeit an incapacitated one, but strolling right into enemy headquarters to do so.
<p>Tradition has identified the site of Judas’ house. <a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/>Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) relays:
<blockquote>The house where, traditionally, Paul stayed is close to the street’s western end. There were no signposts designating streets, but they had names and locals knew them; once one found the correct street, one asked for a particular house by the name of its owner. It is also possible that Luke or his source abbreviates the directions (since they were no longer relevant many years later). (Against the traditional identification of Straight Street, in late Greek ῥύμη was often a narrow street or ally; for a major street, we might expect πλατεια. But the distinction was not pervasive enough to count securely against the tradition. Would an alley monopolize such a prestigious title?) Traditions such as the site of the house may or may not have been preserved by the early Christian community there, but a street’s name might well persist. (Keener, <i>Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28)</I>)</blockquote>
It is clear that God’s instructions serve their purpose in connecting Ananias and Saul (Acts 9:17). Ananias follows directions and Saul’s vision is restored before Ananias baptizes him into the community he recently persecuted (Acts 9:17-19). Ananias’ walk to Straight Street marks one of the first major steps in church history. Saul will become Paul and the world will never again be the same.
<p>How does Saul find himself at Judas’ residence? What is your favorite street name? What is the most aptly named street with which you are familiar? What are the best directions you have received? The worst? Who would be the person you would least want God to send you to? Is God leading you in that direction?
<p>It is fitting that Ananias discovers Saul on Straight Street (Acts 9:11). <a href=http://www.asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/>Craig S. Keener</a> (b. 1960) responds:
<blockquote>Why does Luke specify the particular street in this case? Elsewhere, revelations might include sufficient directions for travelers to find their way (cf. Acts 10:6)—“Judas” was, after all, a common name and hence could hardly specify the house’s location in Damascus by itself. But the street’s name in this case may also have supplied Luke a fortuitous opportunity for a literary connection: those who twisted God’s “straight” road (Acts 13:10) must be blinded (Acts 13:11), but the kingdom mission of true prophets entailed straightening that road again (Luke 3:4-5). Saul has turned to the Lord’s right path, to “the Way” (Acts 9:2). (Keener, <i>Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28)</I>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dbock/>Darrell L. Bock</a> (b. 1953) concurs:
<blockquote>The locale of the meeting is a bit ironic, as usually in Acts the term used for “straight” (εὐθειαν, <i>eutheian</I>) means to be ethically straight (Acts 8:21, 13:10). (Bock, <I>Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)</I>, 360)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/religious_studies/pages/gundry.html?>Robert H. Gundry</a> (b. 1932) supports:
<blockquote>The heart of Simon the magician wasn’t “straight” before God (Acts 8:21). So there may be some symbolism in Saul’s residing in a house on a lane called “Straight.” Certainly his “praying” shows his heart to be straight before God [Acts 9:11]. (Gundry, <i>Commentary on Acts</I>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/425>Rick Strelan</a> (b. 1946) expounds:
<blockquote>Ananias is told that Paul is to be found in the house of Judas and that house was located in the street called Straight (Acts 9:11). Scholars take this to be a simple reference to the address of Judas’s house (for example, F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] 1988:186; Gerhard Schneider [1926-2004] 2002:28). And it might well be; but it seems too coincidental given that being ‘straight’ and ‘upright’ was almost an obsession in the Qumran community (1QS 8.13-15; 1QS 3.4-12), and given that it was important also for the Christians in preparing the way of the Lord (Luke 3:4; Acts 8:21, 13:10). In addition, did Luke also interpret Amos 5:1-27 as referring to the Christian group in Damascus? Was the group there because of the persecution by those in Jerusalem (Acts 9:1) in a way similar to the Covenant group that went to Damascus to escape the Wicked Priest of Jerusalem? (Strelan, <i>Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles</I>, 167)</blockquote>
There may also be Old Testament allusions in play. <a href=http://www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66210>Mikeal C. Parsons</a> (b. 1957) connects:
<blockquote>Hearing echoes of Isaiah help clarify Luke’s point. In Isaiah, darkness/light and crooked/straight are used as images to describe the transformation of those opposing God: “I will lead the blind by a road they do not know, by paths they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground” (Isaiah 42:16; cf. Isaiah 26:7, 35:5). Throughout Isaiah, then, a cluster of images is employed to contrast those who are resisting God’s redemption with those who are following God’s plan: unrighteous/righteous; darkness/light; blind/seeing; crooked/straight; deaf/hearing (<a href=https://www.creighton.edu/ccas/theology/faculty/mdennishamm/>M. Dennis Hamm</a> [b. 1936] 1990, 70). Saul’s blindness, and later the opening of his eyes, is an appropriate symbol for this “enemy of God” who has attempted to reverse the plan of God (Acts 5:38-39; cf. Hamm 1990, 70; Richard I. Pervo [b. 1942], 34). (Parsons, <i>Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)</I>, 128)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.btsr.edu/about/staff-faculty/f-scott-spencer/>F. Scott Spencer</a> (b. 1956) concludes:
<blockquote>It is fitting that such a transformation takes place in a local residence on the road called ‘Straight’ (<i>Eutheian</I>) [Acts 9:11]. In the early chapters of Acts, the church has repeatedly gathered in private dwellings for prayer, fellowship and decision-making in the fullness of the Spirit (Acts 1:12-26, 2:1-4, 42-47, 4:23-31). Now, ironically, the same Saul who had infiltrated ‘house after house’ to arrest Christian disciples (Acts 8:3) finds himself ushered into Judas’ house as a fellow-disciple, a follower of the ‘Way’. We might even say that his rough and crooked path of persecution has been ‘made straight (<i>eutheian</I>)’ (cf. Luke 3:5-6). In contrast to Simon Magus who remained the enemy of the church because of a twisted heart ‘not right/straight’ (<i>eutheia</I>) before God (Acts 8:21), Saul is completely straightened out in his thinking about Jesus and his followers on an aptly named street in Damascus. (Spencer, <i>Acts (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary)</I>, 98)</blockquote>
At the time of his encounter with Jesus, there were few men more reviled by the burgeoning Christian community than Saul. Yet it will be this man who leads the movement to new heights.
<p>It is apropos that Saul gets straight on Straight Street. His past is a reminder that no one is beyond the redemption of God; there is a Straight Street available to all who desire one.
<p>Where is your personal Straight Street; where have you experienced redemption? Is there anyone beyond the realm of straightening out? Is your personal trajectory straightening; are you heading in the right direction? Who can you be assisting on Straight Street?
<p>“When peoples care for you and cry for you, they can straighten out your soul.” - Langston Hughes (1902-1967), <i>Simply Heaven: A Comedy with Music</i>, p. 26Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178766653028698983.post-11432196131001679552014-04-17T15:00:00.000-07:002014-04-17T15:00:00.615-07:00A Prophetic Ride (Zechariah 9:9)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FUgI3dAN--Q/U07e-E87v3I/AAAAAAAAI1U/7iEHar7R6CU/s1600/TheTriumphalEntryHeQi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" width="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FUgI3dAN--Q/U07e-E87v3I/AAAAAAAAI1U/7iEHar7R6CU/s320/TheTriumphalEntryHeQi.jpg" /></a></div><b>Which prophet predicted that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? Zechariah (Zechariah 9:9)</b>
<p>The Book of Zechariah is one of twelve Minor Prophets canonized in the Bible and is positioned as the penultimate book in the Christian Old Testament. The book is commonly divided into two units, often referred to as First Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1-8:23) and Second Zechariah (Zechariah 9:1-14:21). Second Zechariah is comprised of two poetic oracles (Zechariah 9:1-11:17, 12:1-14:21).
<p>Second Zechariah begins by predicting doom for Israel’s enemies (Zechariah 9:1-8). The prophecy then transitions to describing the coming of a triumphant king who ushers in the dawning of a new age (Zechariah 9:9-17).
<p><a href=http://www.cst.edu/academics/faculty/profile/marvin-sweeney/>Marvin A. Sweeney</a> (b. 1953) discusses:
<blockquote>Although the material in Zechariah 9-14 is generally considered to be much later additions to Zechariah 1-8...they appear to outline the fulfillment of the promises articulated in the present oracles concerning Zerubbabel. Throughout Zechariah 9-14, reference is made to the future Davidic monarchy. Zechariah 9:9-10 calls for the people to rejoice because the king will come to them riding upon a donkey and establishing his dominion from sea to sea. (Sweeney, <i>The Twelve Prophets, Volume 2 (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry)</I>, 611)</blockquote>
The Messianic king arrives riding a donkey amid a liturgical procession (Zechariah 9:9).
<blockquote>Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
<br>Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
<br>Behold, your king is coming to you;
<br>He is just and endowed with salvation,
<br>Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
<br>Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9 NASB)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.walterckaiserjr.com/>Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.</a> (b. 1933) situates:
<blockquote>At the heart of Zechariah 9 stands one of the most famous predictions about the coming messianic king. Whether it should be treated separately...or linked with Zechariah 9:1-8 or with Zechariah 9:11-17...is a difficult question. On the one hand, it does continue in the poetic form of Zechariah 9:1-8, and it does describe both the Messiah and the way He will govern the kingdom of God announced in both Zechariah 9:1-8 and Zechariah 9:11-17. On the other hand, it is distinctive in nature and functions as a pivotal point for both Zechariah 9:1-8 and Zechariah 9:11-17, and these factors persuade us that it is best to treat Zechariah 9:9-10 as a distinctive oracle that enlarges on the messianic teaching of Zechariah 3:8 and Zechariah 6:9-15. (Kaiser, <i>Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Mastering the Old Testament)</I>, 370)</blockquote>
The figure mounted on the donkey is the Messiah. Barry G. Webb (b. 1945) identifies:
<blockquote>Zechariah 9:9 is undoubtedly the best-known verse in Zechariah, and one of the better-known verses in the entire Old Testament. The key issue for the interpretation of the passage is the identity of the <i>king</I> who is seen here riding into Jerusalem on a donkey amid shouts of rejoicing...It is God who has been on the move in Zechariah 9:1-8, and his progress has been towards Jerusalem. So it is God himself whom we are expecting to arrive there at this point. But the picture of God himself riding on a donkey is incongruous, to say the least. Furthermore, God is clearly distinguished from the king. God is the speaker (the ‘I’ of Zechariah 9:10) who announces the arrival of the king and speaks of him in the third person...So the king is a man, a human being–but a man who is closely associated with God...The book of Zechariah has already given us the key to the identity of this king. In its context in Zechariah, this king can be none other than the one whose coming was promised in chapter 3 [Zechariah 3:1-10], and symbolized in the crowing of Joshua the high priest in chapter 6 [Zechariah 6:1-15]...The king is God’s Messiah. (Webb, <i>The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come (Bible Speaks Today)</I>, 131)</blockquote>
The picture Zechariah paints is a unique and consequently redefines the notion of king. <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/petersen.cfm>David L. Petersen</a> (b. 1943) deliberates:
<blockquote>The author of Zechariah 9:9 is presenting a highly nuanced form of political expectation. This is no standard royal or messianic expectation, namely, the return of a real or ideal Davidide. This expectation has little in common with the hope for a prince (Ezekiel 40:1-48:35), a crowned Zerubbabel (Haggai 2:23); a Davidide à la the oracles of Zechariah (Zechariah 4:6-10). Instead, the poet focuses on collectivities, addressed through the technique of personification. (Petersen, <i>Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 59)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.swbts.edu/academics/faculty/theology/george-klein/>George L. Klein</a> (b. 1955) concurs:
<blockquote>In Zechariah 9...the royal role of the Messiah appears in unique form. In Zechariah 9:9 the Messiah enters the scene riding a beast of burden, not a steed associated with military might. Riding on a lowly donkey, the Messiah will reign over a kingdom that he will administer peacefully through the strength of compelling righteousness, not brute force as other kings must exert. In addition to the peaceful connotation of the beast on which the coming King will ride, this Monarch will arrive “righteous and having salvation, gentle” (Zechariah 9:9). (Klein, <i>Zechariah (New American Commentary)</I>, 71)</blockquote>
The king that the prophet presents is an idealized version. <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/petersen.cfm>David L. Petersen</a> (b. 1943) characterizes:
<blockquote>Zechariah 9:9 depict[s], in surprising order, the manner in which the king will arrive, as well as his attributes. We might expect the poet to write “Humble, riding upon a donkey” immediately after the report that the king is coming. Instead, the poet offers two adjectives to define the salient features of the king. He, like other idealized earthly kings, will be righteous (so II Samuel 23:3) and victorious. The king shares these attributes with the deity. The imagery of just ruler and military savior are pivotal to the author’s understanding of the king. (Petersen, <i>Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 58)</blockquote>
One of the striking features of the king is that he enters upon a “donkey” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “ass” (ASV, KJV, RSV) (Zechariah 9:9).
<p><A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1699&subpage=profile>Carol L. Meyers</a> (b. 1942) and <A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1690&subpage=profile>Eric M. Meyers</a> (b. 1940) define:
<blockquote>The word <i>hămôr</I>, “ass,” indicating the king’s mount, is the first of three animal terms used in this passage. Its commonplace usage in the Bible signifies a beast of burden (e.g., Genesis 42:26, 44:13, 45:23; I Samuel 16:20; II Samuel 16:1; etc.). However, cognate terms in Ugarit and Mari were used for animals that a deity rides or that draw a chariot in a ritual festival. In contrast to the horse, the mule was evidently a symbol of peace (Wilhelm Theodor In der Smitten 1980:466, 469). Although a lowly beast (Genesis 49:14ff.), it could signify royalty. The story of Saul retrieving asses may be an allusion to his future office [I Samuel 9:3-10], and the succession story of Solomon has him on a mule rather than a horse (although the word there is <i>pered</I> rather than <i>hămôr</I> [I Kings 1:33, 38]). The range of images attached to <i>hămôr</I> is striking, and they may all contribute to the message of this passage—that the king represents peace, that his humble beast is suitable for his role in submitting to divine power while exerting his own royal dominion, and that he is a legitimate monarch. The use of a lowly animal is one of the ways in which a royal figure partakes of the life-style of the people he dominates. In this way he bridges the structural gap between those in power and those subjugated and thereby helps to win the cooperation of people dominated by the royal elite. (Meyers and Meyers, <i>Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 130)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.dallas.edu/faculty/Hahlen.cfm>Mark Allen Hahlen</a> (b. 1959) and <a href=https://www.lincolnchristian.edu/employees/faculty/ham-clay.php#education>Clay Alan Ham</a> (b. 1962) add:
<blockquote>The extended description of the donkey (חמור, <i>hămôr</I>) as <b>a colt, the foal of a donkey</b> [Zechariah 9:10] more narrowly describes the king’s mount in both the premonarchical periods (Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:14; II Samuel 16:1-2; I Kings 1:33). Evidence from Ur and Mari indicates the donkey is the royal mount <i>par excellence</I> in ancient Near East from the second millennium B.C. The association of the donkey with the promised ruler from Judah (Genesis 49:11) and with David (II Samuel 16:1-2) suggests it as an appropriate image for the legitimate Davidic heir. The choice of a donkey rather than a horse to portray the coming of the king also subverts militaristic notions. The horses and chariots that belong to Israel, Persia, or any other nation cannot secure for them the kingdom of Yahweh. This truth resonates with the earlier affirmation that the success of Joshua and Zerubbabel comes not from human power or might (Zechariah 4:6). (Hahlen and Ham, <i>Minor Prophets, Volune 2: Nahum–Malachi (College Press NIV Commentary)</I>, 431)</blockquote>
As noted, there is precedence for ancient monarchs enlisting similar transportation. <a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/petersen.cfm>David L. Petersen</a> (b. 1943) informs:
<blockquote>Just as the...previous poem used surprisingly vivid imagery to describe Yahweh’s presence in Jerusalem, namely, camping at his house [Zechariah 9:8], so too...this second poem uses vivid language to depict the king’s arrival in Jerusalem. To think of a king riding on a donkey may strike one as farfetched. However, we know that human kings in the Ancient Near East, particularly as attested in second millennium B.C.E. texts, rode donkeys. Genesis 49:10-11 also clearly demonstrates that these animals are mentioned in references to royalty (cf. II Samuel 16:2). The sole exception to this pervasive royal imagery is the term “humble,” which is used here to redefine the character of the divine king. (Petersen, <i>Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 58)</blockquote>
<A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1699&subpage=profile>Carol L. Meyers</a> (b. 1942) and <A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1690&subpage=profile>Eric M. Meyers</a> (b. 1940) discuss:
<blockquote>The image of a royal figure mounted on an ass rather than a horse derives from a rather well-established Near Eastern practice of royalty in procession on a mule (Samuel Feigin [1893-1950] 1944; <a href=https://my.vanderbilt.edu/jacksasson/>Jack M. Sasson</a> [b. 1941] 1976:72-73). The description here is perhaps a reapplication of the text of Genesis 49:10ff., where in Jacob’s blessing of Judah and the dynastic promise is related to an action involving donkeys (<a href=https://divinity.uchicago.edu/michael-fishbane>Michael A. Fishbane</a> [b. 1943 1980:355 and 1985:501-02). Fishbane suggests that the postexilic setting of Zechariah 9 is propitious for reworking an older text that forces a future that has not been realized since the Exile. An ancient blessing is reworked into a striking oracle, giving authority to what it envisions. (Meyers and Meyers, <i>Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 129)</blockquote>
Jewish texts especially emphasize the image of a king riding a donkey. <a href=http://www.swbts.edu/academics/faculty/theology/george-klein/>George L. Klein</a> (b. 1955) chronicles:
<blockquote>The biblical story of the coming messianic King likely begins with Genesis 49:10-11: “The scepter will not depart from Judah...He will tether his donkey to a vine.” The Judaic commentary, <i>Genesis Rabbah</I>, also connects the donkey tied to the vine in Genesis 49 to messianic interpretation. Zechariah’s Messiah represents the culmination of the Lord’s promise to David of a Davidic King who would reign perpetually: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (II Samuel 7:16). (Klein, <i>Zechariah (New American Commentary)</I>, 271)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/pscalise/>Pamela J. Scalise</a> (b. 1950) supplements:
<blockquote>The king’s procession to Zion, <b>riding on a donkey,</b> follows an indigenous monarchic tradition found in Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:14 and II Samuel 16:2. David’s return to Jerusalem after putting down Absalom’s revolt provides the background for this picture. He had left the city almost as a fugitive, reviled by his enemies and humbled by the treachery of his favorite son. He returned, having been saved in battle. The picture of the donkey-mounted monarch also interprets this promised king as ruler in Genesis 49:8-12, who tethers “his donkey to a vine,/his colt to the choicest branch.” Here in Zechariah 9:9, as in Genesis 49:11, the <b>colt</b> in the second line specifies the kind of “donkey,” purebred and not previously ridden. It does not name a second animal. The ruler from the tribe of Judah will hold “the obedience of the nations” (Genesis 49:10). A blessing once fulfilled in the Davidic monarchy is here renewed as an eschatological promise. (<a href=http://www.fuller.edu/faculty/jgoldingay/>John Goldingay</a> [b. 1942] and Scalise, <i>Minor Prophets II (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)</I>, 274)</blockquote>
While the motif of the king atop a donkey is present, the parallels between Genesis 49:10-11 and Zechariah 9:9-10 are imprecise. <a href=http://www.mcmasterdivinity.ca/faculty/core/mark-j-boda>Mark J. Boda</a> (b. 1962) observes:
<blockquote>This verse [Zechariah 9:9] appears to assume the royal tradition of Genesis 49:10-11, in which Judah will produce a king for Israel who will ride on a “donkey...colt.”...One should not, however, miss elements of contrast between Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9:9, as <a href=http://www.gcc.edu/academics/artsandletters/biblicalandreligiousstudies/Pages/Faculty.aspx>Iain M. Duguid</a> [b. 1960] has pointed out. Rather than a figure hailing from the warlike tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8), whose garments drip with blood from battle (Genesis 49:11), Zechariah 9 presents a humble king. “The warlike language is still present in Zechariah 9 but it has been transferred from the royal figure to the Lord himself.” (Boda, <I>Haggai, Zechariah (NIV Application Commentary)</i>)</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.candler.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-bios/petersen.cfm>David L. Petersen</a> (b. 1943) theorizes:
<blockquote>Though there seems to be a tradition of the king—in Israel, David—riding on a donkey, I do not think the poet is quoting another biblical text, contra Klaus Seybold [1936-2011], “Späetprophetische Hoffnungen auf die Wiederkunft des Davidischen Zeitalters in Sach 9-14,” <i>Judaica</I> 29 (1973): 104-5. Though there is clear allusion to royal traditions, I do not think that Zechariah 9:9-10 presents a specific allusion to a <i>Vorbild</I> in the Davidic period. (Petersen, <i>Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)</I>, 58)</blockquote>
Given this connection between animal and monarch, it is not surprising that many have taken the donkey as indicative of its rider’s royalty. Katrina J.A. Larkin classifies:
<blockquote>חמוד — another tone-setting word, this time kingly (George M.A. Hanfmann [1911-1986] (1985) traces the tradition of the ‘donkey’ as royal mount back to eighteenth century Mari); and possibly David (Klaus Seybold [1936-2011] 1973;103). (Larkin, <i>The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology</I>, 63)</blockquote>
<a href=http://college.wfu.edu/religion/people/faculty-profiles/dr-ken-hoglund/>Kenneth G. Hoglund</a> (b. 1954) counters:
<blockquote>Though the literature does not always do so, we must distinguish between a donkey (referred to in this passage), and a mule (hybrid between horse and donkey). The mule (Hebrew <i>pered</I>) is preferred over the donkey as an official royal mount. The evidence for a donkey as a royal mount in antiquity is meager. In Akkadian there is an occasional passing reference to a donkey for the king to ride. A Hittite narrative, The Queen of Qanesh and the Tale of Zalpa, has the thirty royal sons driving a donkey, but does not specify that they ride them. In Ugaritical literature, the goddess Athiratu rides on a donkey in one text, thus indicating it a regal mount if not royal...In biblical texts elites occasionally ride on an <i>‘ayir</I> (the second word used in this text...see Judges 10:4, 12:13) or on an <i>’ātōn</I> (the third term, foal of a “donkey,” and Balaam’s mount in Numbers 22:21-33). Consequently, evidence is lacking to suggest that the king in this verse is being provided with royal trappings. (<a href=http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton>John H. Walton</a> [b. 1952], <i>The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary)</I>, 220-21)</blockquote>
Others have seen the donkey as evidence of the monarch’s inherent humility. Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) construes:
<blockquote>The donkey appears to express humility in this context, because Zechariah 9:10 states that the Lord will cut off the horse from his people, ending their misplaced trust in implements of war. Since Zion’s king establishes peace among the nations (Zechariah 9:10), it would be anomalous for him to ride an animal that symbolizes war. The donkey, on the other hand, stands out in this text as a deliberate rejection of this symbol of arrogant trust in human might, expressing subservience to the sovereignty of God. We must view Israel’s king in contrast to Alexander the Great [356-323 BCE] and the other proud conquerors of history. The reference to his riding a beast of burden, not a white charger, underscores this sense of the word <i>‘āni</I>. Jerusalem’s king is of humble mien, yet victorious, and so it has always been that the church does not effectively spread the gospel by sword or by arrogance, but by mirroring the humble spirit of its king and savior. (McComiskey, <i>The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary</I>, 1166)</blockquote>
<A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1699&subpage=profile>Carol L. Meyers</a> (b. 1942) and <A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1690&subpage=profile>Eric M. Meyers</a> (b. 1940) concur:
<blockquote>What does the “ass” imagery represent, in light of the frequent emphasis on kings in relation to horses and chariots in the Bible, especially in First Zechariah (Zechariah 1:8, 6:2, 3, 6, cf. Haggai 2:22)? Horses and chariots represent the military, or power aspects of political domination. “Riding on an ass” is a royal image that does not partake of that dimension in dynastic authority. Karl Elliger [1901-1977] (1975:149), in pointing to numerous ancient rituals for kings on mules, may be correct in emphasizing the present setting, by signaling a postvictory scene, is intended to repudiate warfare of any kind. By substituting nonmilitary animals for horses, the prophet is reversing the power imagery associated with a king’s rule. In the eschatological future, the restoration of the Davidic monarchy will radically alter the notion of kingship—the future will not exert exploitative domination or foster socioeconomic elitism...Indeed the beginning of Zechariah 9:10 (<i>wěhikratti</I>), “I will cut off,” makes it clear that the future king will not need to depend on force in the eschatological future...It is difficult to determine whether this altered perspective of the royal figure can be related to the political realities in Yehud in the time of Second Zechariah, by which time any realistic expectation of full political power being restored to Yehud would have dissipated. The presence of First Zechariah of God’s spirit, rather than political force, as the theme for the future may have been based on political pragmatism. Such may also be the case here, with the Near Eastern ideology of stability and world order accompanying a new ruler involved to further strengthen the eschatological imagery of a restored Davidide...In any case it would be overburdening the text to see it as a reflection of conflicting royal ideologies (as <a href=http://www.hds.harvard.edu/people/faculty/paul-d-hanson>Paul D. Hanson</a> [b. 1939] 1973:43-44 and Rex A. Mason [b. 1926] 1976: 237). (Meyers and Meyers, <i>Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 129-30)</blockquote>
A people who do not have a king are told by the prophet that they can expect one (Zechariah 9:9-17). He will be unique. As is indicated by his mount, he will be both royal and humble. He will be as no king has been before. And this is cause for hope.
<p>What words would you use to describe the ideal monarch? What means of transportation would you expect a ruler to use? Why does Israel’s Messiah sit atop a lowly donkey? Is it a sign of humility, royalty, or both? How improbable is this prophecy? Has the prophecy been fulfilled?
<p>The passage is perhaps the most famous in the book of Zechariah due to its association with Jesus (Matthew 21:5; John 12:15). James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) commends:
<blockquote>Few Messianic prophecies are better known than this, chiefly because of its quotation in Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15 as being fulfilled by the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on what we traditionally call Palm Sunday. (Boice, <i>The Minor Prophets, Volume 2: Micah – Malachi</I>, 194)</blockquote>
The donkey is a staple in the gospel stories of Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem. <a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/mike-butterworth>Mike Butterworth</a> (b. 1941) documents:
<blockquote>It is...recorded in all four gospels that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-40; John 12:12-18. Matthew and John have an explicit quotation of Zechariah 9:9. (Butterworth, <i>Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies)</I>, 180)</blockquote>
<p>Zechariah’s prophecies impacted the New Testament. <a href=http://www.swbts.edu/academics/faculty/theology/george-klein/>George L. Klein</a> (b. 1955) explains:
<blockquote>The book of Zechariah exerted a profound influence over the New Testament, particularly in the realm of Messianic passages—a point long noted by New Testament scholars. Several important themes from the book figure prominently in the New Testament. One of the most important of these is the shepherd-king. From Zechariah 9:9 the King who rode into Jerusalem on a “donkey” reemerges in Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15). C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] even suggests that Zechariah provided the Gospel writers with material of equal importance to the very <i>testimonia</I> of Christ’s ministry. (Klein, <i>Zechariah (New American Commentary)</I>, 61-62)</blockquote>
Zechariah 9:9-10 is of particular interest to New Testament scholars. <a href=http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/mike-butterworth>Mike Butterworth</a> (b. 1941) comments:
<blockquote>Zechariah 9:9-10 is probably the best known and most discussed passage in Zechariah 9-14. Christian tradition has affirmed that Christ fulfilled this prophecy when he rode into Jerusalem jut before his arrest and death. Jesus himself seems deliberately to have acted out this prophecy. Since he also referred other passages from Deutero-Zechariah to himself there is considerable interest in the relation that these have each other. Paul Lamarche [1923-2004] connected them by means of his elaborate chiastic structure and argued that together they make up a coherent picture of a shepherd-king messiah. (Butterworth, <i>Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies)</I>, 180)</blockquote>
The passage’s pervasive influence is somewhat perplexing. Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and <a href=http://www.nyts.edu/academic-resources/faculty/rev-dr-jin-h-han/>Jin H. Han</a> deliberate:
<blockquote>This is the first of the passages in Zechariah 9-14 which are taken up in the Gospels as prefiguring the ministry, and particularly the passion, of Jesus (F.F. Bruce [1910-1991]1961 remains the clearest discussion of the material as a whole.) There is still no agreement as to why this section should have been so influential. The passages might all have been incorporated into a collection of Testimonia, but that only raises the difficulty again at one remove: why should this apparently very obscure collection of material have been so widely used? Clearly the New Testament writers regarded it as in some sense “messianic,” but there are no obvious internal grounds for seeing that characteristic as more obvious here than in many other prophetic passages. In general terms this usage may remind us that the New Testament Gospel-writers will have regarded the testimony of God-given Scripture as more reliable than uncertain and sometimes conflicting human memories. (Coggins and Han, <i>Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi</I>)</blockquote>
Matthew seems to have taken the prophecy especially literally. Charlene McAfee Moss reports:
<blockquote>Where Luke 19:30 follows Mark 11:2 with respect to Jesus’ instruction to his disciples...the parallel passage in Matthew 21:2 describes two animals–they will find an ass tied and her colt with her...Mark and Luke contain no reference to fulfillment of Scripture in this part of their narratives, however, an echo of Genesis 49:11a may be discerned in the expression, “a colt tied” (Moss, <i>The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew</I>, 80)</blockquote>
Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and <a href=http://www.nyts.edu/academic-resources/faculty/rev-dr-jin-h-han/>Jin H. Han</a> expound:
<blockquote>Matthew 21:4 has brought it into the Gospel’s own characteristic structure, using the same formula as is found frequently there, specifically referring to this as a word “spoken through the prophet.” It is argued that the form of the text used by Matthew already prepared the way for such a reading (Max Wilcox 1988:199-201), and this might tie in with the existence of a collection of Testimonia...Matthew’s reading has been criticized by Jewish scholars on the grounds that he is interpreting poetry as literal fact (<a href=http://www.hds.harvard.edu/people/faculty/jon-d-levenson>Jon D. Levenson</a> [b. 1949] 1993:8). Certainly it seems likely that what was poetic parallelism in the original...has been understood by Matthew as a reference to two animals, on both of which Jesus is to be envisaged as riding into Jerusalem! (Coggins and Han, <i>Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi</I>)</blockquote>
Though not explicitly cited, Zechariah 9:9 likely influenced Mark’s gospel as well. <a href=https://sites.google.com/site/henkjandejonge/>Henk Jan de Jonge</a> (b. 1943) suspects:
<blockquote>According to Mark 11:7-11, Jesus entered Jerusalem on a colt. Matthew, in his reworking of this passage (Matthew 21:4), adds the comment that ‘this took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying “Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”’ This is a quotation from Zechariah 9:9, which does not yet occur in Mark. Yet many interpreters of Mark are of the opinion...that Mark’s account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem alludes to Zechariah 9:9, even if Mark avoids quoting Zechariah explicitly at this point. Not only in Matthew, but also in Mark, is the colt riding the animal mentioned in Zechariah 9:9. (<a href=http://www.pmb.ox.ac.uk/fellows-staff/profiles/professor-christopher-tuckett>Christopher Tuckett</a> [b. 1948], “The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark 11:15 and Zechariah 14:21”, <i>The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence</I>, 87)</blockquote>
The Christian connection to Jesus has monopolized the interpretation of this Jewish text. Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and <a href=http://www.nyts.edu/academic-resources/faculty/rev-dr-jin-h-han/>Jin H. Han</a> acknowledge:
<blockquote>Largely Christian interpretation has dominated the understanding of a somewhat obscure passage. Jewish writers recognized that there had been a Christian “take-over,” but no concerted alternative interpretation emerged...Joyce G. Baldwin [1921-1995] is perhaps optimistic when she says that “most commentators agree that the Messianic king is foreshadowed here” (Baldwin 1972:163), but it is certainly true that a “messianic” understanding has been widely proposed. One approach which combines a “messianic” type of understanding and has been acceptable to later Judaism has been to see here a reference to Judas Maccabaeus, never a king, but treated, at least by the author of I Maccabees, in quasi-royal terms. Certainly one strand of later Jewish tradition, exemplified by Ibn Ezra [1089-1167], saw in the figure depicted here a reference to Judas Maccabaeus. More generally, it may be that our passage was interpreted by the author of I Maccabees as referring to the exploits of the Hasmoneans, and in particular Jonathan (I Maccabees 11:60-74, 12:1-38, 13:6-11) (<a href=http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/andrew-chester>Andrew Chester</a> [b. 1948] 1988:152). There is also a possible reference of this kind among the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 12:12). (Coggins and Han, <i>Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi</I>)</blockquote>
The New Testament’s usage of the text does ring true to Zechariah’s original intent. <A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1699&subpage=profile>Carol L. Meyers</a> (b. 1942) and <A HREF=http://religiondepartment.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=1690&subpage=profile>Eric M. Meyers</a> (b. 1940) affirm:
<blockquote>The New Testament (Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15) is quite comfortable with the imagery of the passage; in adhering to its peaceful tone, it remains faithful to the original intent of Zechariah. (Meyers and Meyers, <i>Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible)</I>, 129)</blockquote>
Given this tradition, Jesus’ conscription of the donkey would likely have evoked messianic hopes in the spectators. <a href=http://cas.bethel.edu/academics/departments/biblical-theological/faculty>Paul R. Eddy</a> (b. 1959) discerns:
<blockquote>With Zechariah (among others) supplying the prophetic script, Jesus’ entry into the city on a donkey and his subsequent temple action (whatever else it signifies) would have consciously evoked messianic expectations. (Carey C. Newman [b. 1959], “The (W)Right Jesus: Eschatological Prophet, Israel’s Messiah, Yahweh Embodied”, <i>Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright [b. 1948]’s Jesus and the Victory of God</I>, 51)</blockquote>
Jesus is intentional about entering Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1-3; Mark 11:1-3; Luke 19:29-31). In doing so, he plays upon Jewish tradition to inform the initiated that he is the long awaited messiah, “humble, and mounted on a donkey”.
<p>Who does this prophecy most benefit? Do its words apply only to Jesus or has it been fulfilled in other ways? Does the prophecy’s existence lead to its fulfillment; is this art reflecting life or life reflecting art? Would Jesus have utilized the donkey had Zechariah not made his prophecy? Did the prophets guide Jesus’ ministry? How much of his identity did Jesus glean from tradition?
<p>“Persistent prophecy is a familiar way of assuring the event.” - George Gissing (1857-1903), “An Author at Grass: Extracts from the Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft”, <a href=http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/><i>The Fortnightly Review</i></a>, Volume LXXII: July to December 1902, p. 337Chandler Vinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790062024032792258noreply@blogger.com0