A Trivial Devotion

Paul: Snake Bitten

2012-03-02T15:00:00.015-08:00

Why did the Maltese people think Paul was a god? He was bitten by a viper and felt no harm from it (Acts 28:6)

The final chapter of Acts begins with Paul and his shipmates shipwrecked on Melita, modern Malta (Acts 28:1). The castaways find themselves surrounded by (literally) barbarians (non-Greek speakers) who are unusually hospitable (Acts 28:2). While helpfully gathering kindling for a fire the apostle is bitten by a viper (Acts 28:3). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) speculates:

He had probably mistaken it for a small twig as it lay on the ground stiff with cold, but the heat quickly brought it back to life. A parallel has been quoted from T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia): “When the fire grew hot a long back snake wound slowly out into our group; we must have gathered it, torpid, with the twigs.” (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 497)

The natives immediately assume that Paul must be a murderer facing divine retribution (Acts 28:4). To their surprise, the apostle nonchalantly shakes the snake off (Acts 28:5). When they realize that the serpent’s attack will have no ill effects on the stranded man, they jump to the conclusion that he is not a killer but in fact a god (Acts 28:6).

But they were expecting that he was about to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god. (Acts 28:6 NASB)

The aggressive serpent is most commonly translated “viper” which is true to the Greek, echidna (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV). The only other New Testament occurrences of this word are found in insults levied by Jesus and John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23:33; Luke 3:7). Though the term literally means “viper”, it is also translated more generically as “snake” (CEV), “poisonous snake” (NLT) and “venomous snake” (MSG). The diversity in translation is due to historical, not linguistic, concerns.

Ben Witherington (b. 1951) explains:

Luke uses the word εχιδνα for this creature, which suggests some sort of poisonous viper. It has been complained that Malta does not have any poisonous snakes, and it has also been noted that poisonous snakes such as vipers strike and withdraw rather than fastening themselves on their victims...It should be noted, however, that nineteen hundred years of civilization and the gradual extinction of various species of creatures on that island caused by human expansion can easily account for the absence of poisonous snakes on Malta today. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 777)

Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch add:

If this was a poisonous snake, scholars propose that the island is Cephallenia, which has poisonous snakes and heavier rainfall than Malta. On the other hand, Luke may have embellished the event to further highlight Paul as a holy man. Recall Jesus’ bestowal of power on his disciples to “tread upon serpents and scorpions...nothing will hurt you” (Luke 10:19; compare Mark 16:18). (Malina and Pilch, Malina and Pilch, Social-science Commentary on the Book of Acts, 175)

J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) defends:

It is not wise to pass historical judgment based on the use of the verb “fasten”, as opposed to “strike.” The narrator’s fondness for verisimilitude is well demonstrated. Even if spinning a tale out of thin air, he would likely not employ details that would only raise the eyebrows of his ancient readers. (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 514)

The snake’s species is not as important as the threat it poses to Paul. Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) observes:

Luke calls the viper a “wild beast” [Acts 28:4] to point up its danger to Paul’s life. The viper was venomous. “Hanging from his hand” adds to “fastened onto his hand” an emphasis on the viper’s not letting go. It’s determined to kill Paul with a prolonged injection of poison—hence the barbarians’ “Surely.” [Acts 28:4] (Gundry, Commentary on Acts)

Paul faces mortal danger yet again while en route to Rome. The natives know the tendencies of their own snakes and the serpent’s attack does not produce the expected result. This is Malta’s introduction to Paul and their perception of the apostle changes from bad human (murderer) to deity in a matter of minutes.

Have you ever been bitten by a snake? When have you completely misjudged someone’s character? As there were 276 castaways (Acts 27:37) plus unnumbered natives, why did the serpent bite Paul? Is escaping a snakebite unscathed a sign of spiritual prowess (Mark 16:18)? What would it take to convince you that someone was God incarnate? Which of the Maltese theories on Paul, murderer or deity, is closer to the truth?

The people of Malta have two rapid fire responses to the snakebite. Ajith Fernando analyzes:

The reaction that Paul was probably a murderer (Acts 28:4) is typical of superstitious people who see others going through misfortune—they assume that they are paying for their wrong deeds. When nothing happened to Paul, their suggestion led them to change their verdict, saying that he was a god (Acts 28:6) (Fernando, Acts (The NIV Application Commentary, 565)

In his study on the serpent in scripture, James H. Charlesworth ( b. 1940) notes that the two conclusions they draw are normative types: “the serpent may first symbolize the Death-Giver...and then reveal Divinity (Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized, 356-257).”

Specifically, viewing a snake bite as evidence of divine justice was common in the ancient world, similar to the concept of karma. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) concludes:

Two things emerge from Acts 28:3-4. First, there is an explicit statement by the characters of the Mediterranean assumption that the animal kingdom, often a serpent, functioned as a vehicle of divine justice. Second, the serpent bite is explicitly understood as a corollary to involvement in storm and shipwreck. Both are believed by the natives to function in the same way, as divine judgment. (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 216)

William J. Larkin, Jr. expounds:

The Greeks viewed justice as a virgin daughter of Zeus who kept watch for any injustice done on earth and reported it to her father, who then dispensed retributive justice to make it right, including destroying ships at sea (Hesiod, Works and Days 239, 256; Plutarch Moralia 161F). The Phoenicians also had a god (or at least demigod) called Justice. (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 380)

Misinterpreting a divine sign is a common occurrence in Acts (Acts 2:12-13, 3:12, 8:18-21, 14:11-18, 19:13-16). Apparently the language barrier prevents Paul from disclaiming deity as he and Barnabas had done previously in Lystra (Acts 14:8-18).

The author and the reader are presumed to have a different perspective than the locals. Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1918) writes:

Their first, ignorant reactions to Paul are expressed in Acts 28:4 and Acts 28:6. These verses deliberately present the perspective of the natives—what they saw, what they expected, what they said in response—and are not to be taken as indications of the views of the implied author. (Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 340)

Though they are wrong about some things, the people of Malta are quite right about others. The natives are correct in assuming that they are witnessing something supernatural. In truth, Paul was (indirectly) a murderer (Acts 7:58, 22:4, 26:9-11; I Corinthians 15:9) and an emissary of God (Romans 1:1, 11:13; I Corinthians 1:1, 4:9, 9:1-2, 15:9; II Corinthians 1:1, 11:5, 12:11; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; I Timothy 1:1, 2:7; II Timothy 1:1, 1:11; Titus 1:1). He was of God, not God.

How should the reader interpret Paul’s being unharmed by the viper? When have you attached spiritual significance to a natural event? Do you do this often?

“Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic.” - Edward de Bono (b. 1933), Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas, p. 58

Hushai the Archite: First Friend

2012-02-29T15:00:00.015-08:00

In David’s time, what was Hushai the Archite called? The king’s friend (I Chronicles 27:33)

I Chronicles 27 catalogs the leading Israelites of David’s era (I Chronicles 27:1-34). The chapter inventories military officers (I Chronicles 27:1-14), tribal leaders (I Chronicles 27:16-24) and the king’s court (I Chronicles 27:25-34). The final list offers a retrospective glimpse into David’s royal cabinet (I Chronicles 27:25-34).

The names at the end of the index are familiar to readers of II Samuel ( I Chronicles 27:33-34). Two officials who figured prominently in Absalom’s revolt are listed side by side in David’s court (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Athithophel, the royal counselor who sided with David’s son in his failed coup d’état, is listed with Hushai, an advisor who remained loyal to David. Traitorous Athithophel is described as a “counselor” while Hushai is remembered simply as “the king’s friend” (I Chronicles 27:33).

Ahithophel was counselor to the king; and Hushai the Archite was the king’s friend. (I Chronicles 27:33 NASB)

The term “Archite” connects Hushai with a clan that settled near Ataroth, on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin (Joshua 16:2-3). It is presumed that “Hushai” is a diminutive form of Ahishai (also Ahushai).

Hushai’s designation is conspicuous amidst the compendium of official titles. He is labeled by the Hebrew word rea`. The word is common but this marks the only time it is used in I Chronicles. It means “friend, companion, fellow, another person” and as such is translated “friend” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “companion” (KJV, NKJV), “advisor” (CEV) and “confidant” (NIV). There are certainly worse descriptors.

The epithet, however, is not merely descriptive. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) relays, “Athithophel and Hushai are mentioned together, the first as counsellor and the second as ‘friend’. The last term for some time has been interpreted as a title, rather than a simple noun (Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 479).”

Simon John De Vries (b. 1921) relays the position as “a kind of chief executive (De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Volume XI), 214).”

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) concurs:

Hushai remained loyal to David as a political adviser, and he is here called “the king’s friend” (I Chronicles 27:33; cf. II Samuel 15:37, 16:16). This expression is probably a formal title for a trusted sage; the position has parallels in the Egyptian royal court. (Hill, 1 & 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 321)

It is fitting that Hushai is juxtaposed with Athithophel. The two were on opposite sides of the most significant threat to David’s monarchy, the revolt from the king’s son, Absalom (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Athithophel joined Absalom but Hushai remained loyal to David. The Archite attempted to join the deposed king in exile but at David’s request, Hushai remained in Jerusalem and offered himself to Abasalom as an advisor (II Samuel 15:32-37). Though both Athtithophel and Hushai appeared to be aiding Absalom’s uprising, Hushai was actually working as a double agent. In addition to relaying information to David, Hushai countered Athtithophel’s counsel with intentionally bad advice (II Samuel 17:5-29). The dueling counselors functioned in much the way a competing angel and devil do in cartoon bubbles. Fortunately for David, Absalom listened to the wrong voice. When Ahithophel proposed an attack, Hushai convinced Abasalom to delay, buying David time to escape (II Samuel 17:1-16, 22).

Steven Shawn Tuell (b. 1956) analyzes:

The revolt fails in large measure because Hushai...pretending to go over to Absalom’s side, counters Athithophel’s wise counsel with bad advice (II Samuel 15:32-37, 17:5-14). Athithophel, seeing his counsel rejected and knowing Absalom’s case is doomed, commits suicide (II Samuel 17:23). (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 106)

Despite being a notorious traitor, Chronicles makes no mention of Athithophel’s disloyalty. Paul K. Hooker (b. 1953) writes:

Because he omits all discussion of the revolt of David’s son Absalom, the Chronicler masks the roles played by these two characters in those events (II Samuel 15:32-37, 17:5-14). In the present list, Athithophel and Hushai are listed alongside one another, as if none of the events of Absalom’s revolt had occurred and both had rendered valuable service to David. (Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Westminster Bible Companion), 106)

John Mark Hicks (b. 1957) counters:

The Chronicler assumes a knowledge of political intrigues without commenting on them. His only hint is that Athithophel was succeeded by Jehoiada son of Benaiah and by Abiathar. He does not say why Athithophel was replaced, but he assumes his readers know the story. (Hicks, 1 & 2 Chronicles (The College Press NIV Commentary), 237-38)

Were you offered any position in the royal court, what would you choose? What is the worst advice someone has ever given you? When two equally credible advisors offer conflicting guidance, how do you decide which you will follow? Why does the chronicler omit Athithophel’s betrayal? Who has betrayed you? Did his loyalty during David’s time of need merit Hushai the moniker “the king’s friend”?

Hushai is known as “David’s friend” prior to Absalom’s revolt (II Samuel 15:37, 16:17) but his relationship with the king likely deepened during the crisis (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Although Hushai is never mentioned again in Scripture, one of the Solomon’s prefects, Baana son of Hushai, is likely his son (I Kings 4:16).

Hushai was not only a royal advisor but also a friend of the monarch himself. In addition to their formal Cabinets, many United States presidents have had friends who served as informal advisors. Most famously, Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) listened to his crew of cronies and newspaper men so frequently that his opponents dubbed them his “kitchen cabinet”. Their importance was elevated when Jackson dismissed five of his eight Cabinet officials in the middle of his first term.

In contrast, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) filled some of his Cabinet positions with “enemies”. This revolutionary strategy is chronicled in Doris Kearns Goodwin (b. 1943)’s New York Times Best Seller Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.

Who has remained loyal to you through the worst times of your life? Were you a monarch, who would you designate to be your “friend”? Would you prefer to be advised by your friends or a team of rivals? Why?

“The antidote for fifty enemies is one friend.” - Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

Don't Grab a Dog By the Ears & Other Advice

2012-02-28T15:00:00.000-08:00

Complete: “He who meddles in a quarrel not his own _____________________________________________.” Is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears (Proverbs 26:17)

Conflict has seemingly always been part of the human experience. Proverbs 26:17-22 marks the chapter’s third series of sayings and speaks to the general topic of strife. In advising readers not to meddle in someone else’s quarrel, the sage returns to the familiar imagery of a dog for the second time in the chapter (Proverbs 26:11, 17). Proverbs equates meddling into another’s affairs to yanking a dog by its ears. This practice ensures pain and injury. And the dog will not like it either. (President Lyndon Johnson learned after grabbing his beagle “Him” by his ears, pictured with his sister “Her”, in this May 4, 1964 photo op that animal lovers do not like it either.)

Like one who takes a dog by the ears
Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (Proverbs 26:17 NASB)

Dave L. Bland (b. 1953) paraphrases, “According to Proverbs 26:17, those who get involved in quarrels that are none of their business provoke retaliation and will suffer injury (Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon (College Press NIV Commentary), 239).”

Alyce M. McKenzie (b. 1955) assumes:

The sages of Israel, observing recurring stories of individuals in verbal combat with one another, devised the proverbs...These proverbs have obviously arisen out of anonymous sages’ observation of narrative patterns in life around them. Far from being static statements of universal truth, proverbs make themselves available as wisdom tools for interpreting present and future stories. (McKenzie, Preaching Proverbs: Wisdom for the Pulpit, xv-xvi)

Like many modern aphorisms that incorporate canine imagery, the sage draws upon a dog’s life. Proverbs 26:17 paints a humorous word picture to remind the reader to mind her own business. Unlike many proverbs, the analogy is timeless, holding true as much today as it did at the time it was written.

Naturally, dogs do not like being grabbed by their ears. Tova L. Forti (b. 1921) writes:

The proverb describes an episode of picking a quarrel: the picturesque image of someone who provokes a dog by pulling its ears (LXX: “tail”)—considered to be a very sensitive organ—represents the quarrel-monger. (Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum), 99)

The Hebrew for “dog” (keleb) does not indicate a breed. The more general term is apropos as the unpleasant condition transcends classification. Most translations reflect this by speaking simply of a “dog” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT) though some add adjectives to capture the saying’s setting: “mad dog” (CEV, MSG), “passing dog” (NRSV, RSV), and “stray dog” (NIV). Though these descriptors are not found explicitly in the original text, they capture its meaning.

Michael A. Zigarelli explains:

If we read this verse in cultural context...the admonition is far more compelling. Dogs were not pets in the ancient Near East, but rather wild animals, like jackals. If we were to grab such a beast by the ears, we would be in mortal danger indeed. In this light, the warning takes on a much greater urgency than if we mentally transport Fifi to 900 B.C. Proverbs 26:17 implies that we could in fact be seriously harmed by entering the fray. (Zigarelli, Management by Proverbs: Applying Timeless Wisdom in the Workplace, xxiii)

Tremper Longman III adds:

It is obviously stupid to pull the ears of a dog. To make sense of the proverb, however, the dog must be understood to be mean, so that such behavior would certainly cause it to bite. The comparison suggests that those who butt into a fight that they have no part in are asking for the same consequence. Both parties may well turn against the person who tries to step in to help or take one of the two sides. The comparison is an observation, but it certainly functions as a warning. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 469)

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) analyzes:

The least dangerous of the antisocial troublemakers is the busybody, for he hurts only himself...The confrontational and outspoken busybody unnecessarily experiences the negative emotions of becoming furious about someone or something and runs the danger of getting hurt...The dispute...is likened to a semiwild dog. Because of the Hebrews’ prejudice that dogs were unclean, most dogs in Palestine were semiwild, like the pariah dogs that sill haunt some countries. Its dynamic equivalent would be a jackal. Grabbing it by its sensitive ears connotes the inevitability of getting hurt in the needless dispute. Not even Samson grabbed the foxes by their ears. (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 358)

Duane A. Garrett (b. 1953) summarizes: “Busybodies cannot resist the temptation to inject themselves into private disputes, and they have no excuse for being surprised at the violent outbursts that are sure to follow (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 214).”

What modern proverbs have you heard which reference dogs? Have you ever interfered in someone else’s quarrel? How does yanking a dog by the ears correlate to meddling in a dispute? What examples can you think of where the sage’s advice should have been followed? For whose benefit is this proverb written, the busybody or the combatants? Why should one not intervene in a quarrel?

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) sees the text as referencing a fight amongst strangers:

Butting into others’ quarrels is a good way to get hurt...It is seizing the ears of a passing dog—that is, a strange one—that can get one bitten. (To be sure, there were, so far as we know, no domesticated dogs in ancient Israel, but one who lives near one’s house might be less hostile.) Likewise it is the danger of interfering in strangers’ quarrels (rather than, say, the squabbling of two family members) that is the object of this particular warning. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible),799)

John W. Nieder (b. 1952) and Thomas M. Thompson concur, advising:

In many cases confrontation may be called for, but you are not the person who should do the confronting. The most obvious case is where the problem or dispute is simply none of your business...Often it seems noble and virtuous to intervene in someone else’s quarrel. But unless you have specific authority to do so, God’s Word says your involvement is folly. (Nieder and Thompson, Forgive and Love Again: Healing Wounded Relationships, 156)

Why would someone interfere in another’s fracas? When is a quarrel your business? When would you want someone meddling in your affairs? Is it ever blessed to be the peacemaker in someone else’s argument (Matthew 5:9)? Does this advice apply to a nation’s foreign policy?

“Justice means minding one’s own business and not meddling with other men’s concerns.” - Plato (427–347 BCE), Republic 4.433a, translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford (1874-1943)

As Old As Methuselah

2012-02-23T15:00:00.000-08:00

How old was Methuselah when he died? 969 years old (Genesis 5:27)

The account of the Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-8:22) is preceded by the genealogies of two of Adam’s sons, Cain (Genesis 4:17-24) and Seth (Genesis 5:1-32). The latter genealogy spans 1556 years from birth to birth and serves to bridge the gap between Adam (Genesis 5:1-5) and Noah (Genesis 5:28-32). Though the text never explicitly compares the two families, the biblical story will abandon Cain and follow Seth’s line. W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) concludes, “By making all subsequent descendants not of Cain but of Seth, the Priestly writers free us from the onus of Cain’s fratricide and his mark (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 73).”

Despite there being virtually no narrative included in the genealogy of Seth (with the possible exception of Enoch in Genesis 5:21-24), it has long intrigued readers due to the long life cycles involved. The average life span of the genealogy’s ten antediluvians (people who lived prior to the Flood) is 857.5 years; 912.2 if you eliminate the outlier (Genesis 5:21-24) and limit the data to those who died of natural causes. Adam was still alive to meet Noah’s father, Lamech, eight generations later. Methuselah represents the apex of longevity, living a whopping 969 years (Genesis 5:27)!

So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died. (Genesis 5:27 NASB)

Though today Methuselah is synonymous with agedness, he does not stand out amidst his family. No note is made of his age being exceptional and he eclipsed his grandfather, Jared, the second oldest man ever, by a mere seven years (Genesis 5:20). Almost everyone from his gene pool lived the better part of a millennia.

With the exception of fathering and naming his son (Lamech) no word or deed of Methuselah is recorded (Genesis 5:21-27). His name appears seven times in the Bible, always in genealogies (Genesis 5:21, 22, 25, 26, 27; I Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:37). Perhaps because he did nothing else, Methuselah became the icon of the period’s longevity.

There is some debate as to the etymology of the name “Methuselah”. The name’s meaning is most commonly rendered “man of the dart (or spear)”. David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) writes:

The meaning of the Hebrew name has been interpreted variously as “a man of the javelin,” “a man of Selah or Sin (the god of Ur Casdim),” or as a corruption of the Bab. Mutu-sa-ili into Mutu-sa-ilati, meaning “husband of the goddess.” (Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, 503)

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) dissects:

The name “Methuselah” is a combination of mětû, “man of,” and šelah, “Shelah.” The former is related to West Semitic mutu (“person, man, husband”), but “Shelah” is uncertain. Shelah also occurs in Genesis 10:24 and Genesis 11:12-15. “Shelah” is taken either as a weapon (“man of the weapon,” cf. Nehemiah 4:17), a place name, or deity. (Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1- 11:26, 315-16)

An ominous alternate reading is less likely, but far more interesting. Some conjecture that the first word of the compound “Methuselah” is not math (“male, man”) but rather is derived from muwth (“to die, kill, have one executed”) and depending upon the uncertain vowel pointing, could read “his death”. The second component, shelach (“weapon, missile, sprout”), is the noun form of the verb shalach, meaning “to send, send away, let go, stretch out”. As such, some speculate that “Methuselah” is actually the incomplete sentence “His death shall bring” or “When he dies, it shall come”. The genealogy does attest that Methuselah’s death corresponded to the year of the Flood (Genesis 7:1-24). If this reading is correct, Methuselah’s name and life were a testament to God’s grace as the deity allowed humanity the longest possible time to repent before sending the deluge.

Though none of his oracles are recorded in the Old Testament, Methuselah’s father, Enoch, is said to be a prophet (Genesis 5:21-24, Jude 1:14-15). Many have seen his son’s name as Enoch’s one documented Old Testament prophecy - Methuselah’s death would mark the end of an era. John Phillips is representative of this opinion when he writes:

His father, Enoch, embedded one of his prophecies in Methuselah’s name: “When he dies, it shall come.” throughout all of Methuselah’s long life, conditions on earth went from bad to worse; but still God held His hand for He is of great patience, “not willing that any should perish” (II Peter 3:9). The antediluvians took God’s inaction as proof either of His non-existence or indifference. (Phillips, Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary, 78)

What cannot be denied is that when Methuselah died, the Flood came. There is a week long delay before the Flood that has been interpreted as a mourning period for Methuselah (Genesis 7:10). R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) informs, “The seven-day pause recorded in Genesis 7:10 was, according to the Jewish midrash, a period of mourning for the death of Methuselah who died in the year of the flood (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 138).”

Are the genealogies of Cain and Seth intended to be compared and contrasted? Do you think Methuselah’s goal was to live to be 1000? How would Willard Scott have acknowledged Methuselah? What would it be like to endure the better part a millennia? What would the ramifications be if people still lived as long as the antediluvians? Do you read the ages literally?

Many explanations have been given to account for the long life spans of the antedivluvians, most reducing them to correspond to more modern spans. Many read almost like theories on dog years, which for the record Methuselah lived 3889.

John H. Walton (b. 1952) summarizes:

Have the numbers been misrepresented or misunderstood? Are they symbolic? Did the antediluvians simply live longer? There have been many attempts to account for the numbers through mathematical gymnastics, but none of the proposals has been able to provide a solution that encompasses all of the data. It is impossible to understand the numbers in terms of something other than base ten, both because base ten is the norm for Semitic civilizations (except Sumerian-based Akkadian) as far back as records are available, and because any other system results in men fathering children at the age of six or seven years old. The latter consequence also makes it impossible that a “year” represents a cycle of the moon rather than a cycle of the sun...Those who are more inclined to take them as symbolic must provide an explanation of how the numbers are operating on the symbolic level and how genealogies were understood by the biblical authors that allow us to consider a symbolic view as representing the face value of the text. (Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), 282-83)

One thing is certain: something happened which considerably reduced life expectancy. Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) interpret God’s words before the Flood as capping human life spans at 120 years (Genesis 6:2):

The giver of life (cf. Genesis 3:22) will not leave his spirit forever in humanity. His days will be no more than 120 years (the age of Moses, Deuteronomy 34:7). Methuselah would keep his record of longevity (969 years). The long lifespans of the early ancestors—a minimized version of ancient Oriental examples—are chosen so that “Methuselah” also, who appears to send death away, died before the flood. (Kessler & Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 77)

This interpretation is problematic in that some have lived past 120. In the Bible, Ishmael (137 years, Genesis 25:17), Isaac (180, Genesis 35:28) and Aaron (123, Numbers 33:39) exceeded 120 years long after the Flood. Believe it or not the number has even been surpassed in modern times. The longest unambiguously documented human lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875–1997), who died at age 122 years, 164 days. It is worth noting that almost all of the people who have had extremely long lifespans in the post-Biblical era are women.

Thomas L. Brodie, director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Ireland, identifies another turning point:

The generations that follow Shem dwindle. There are essentially only nine (nine begettings), not the standard ten (as in Genesis 5:1-32) and the numbers fall: 500, 403, 403, 430, 209 (Peleg), 207, 200, 119. In the Adam-Noah genealogy (Genesis 5:1-32) there was no such steady decline. Methuselah, with 969 years, was near the end. The overall impression of a generating process which, whatever its original energy, is now falling. (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 204)

Miguel A. De La Torre (b. 1958) concludes:

Human life, which had in the pre-deluge years reached 969 years (in the case of Methuselah, Genesis 5:27) was curtailed to only 120 years (further reduced post-deluge to “seventy years, or perhaps eighty,” Psalm 90:10), thus connecting longevity with the eventual falling away from godliness. (De La Torre, Genesis: Belief: a Theological Commentary on the Bible,107)

The only Psalm of Moses (Psalm 90), to which De La Torre alludes, discusses life expectation:

As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
Or if due to strength, eighty years,
Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
For soon it is gone and we fly away. (Psalm 90:10 NASB)

Why do you think life expectancy was said to have reduced so dramatically? Who is the oldest person you know or have known? When is a person old? When, if ever, do you think Methuselah considered himself old? How long do you want to live? With technological advances, how long can we live?

“A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.” - John Barrymore (1882-1942)

Matthew: Christian Tax Collector?

2012-02-22T15:00:00.000-08:00

Which Gospel writer was a tax collector? Matthew

The principal story for which Matthew is known is his call to discipleship (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-31). In fact, this is the only narrative which features Matthew in the entire Bible. The Synoptic gospels report that Matthew was called to be Jesus’ disciple while on the job, sitting at a tax collector’s booth near Capernaum (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-31). Matthew’s gospel is as detached as the other gospels when recounting the occasion.

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. (Matthew 9:9 NASB)

Daniel J. Harrington concludes, “We are probably to imagine the ‘tax office’ (telōnion) as a tollbooth at which fees were collected on goods (most likely fish) as they were transported out of the region of the Sea of Galilee (Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina), 126).”

While the gospel that bears his name refers to the tax collector as Matthew (Matthew 9:9), for unstated reasons he is called Levi in the parallel accounts (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27). Though the name changes, all of the elements of the story remain intact. When called, the tax collector leaves his post to follow Jesus (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-28). (Hopefully it was near the end of his shift.) He then hosts a dinner party for his new found master (Matthew 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-31). The immediacy of Matthew’s response echoes Jesus’ previous call to the fisherman (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20).

Being a tax collector in the first century was inauspicious. When Matthew’s gospel lists the twelve disciples(Matthew 10:1-4), only Matthew’s vocation is mentioned (Matthew 10:3). He is described as a telones (Matthew 9:9, 10:3). This term is most commonly rendered “tax collector” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) but in deference to the publicum, the Latin state treasury, older translations use “publican” (ASV, KJV). The Message states simply that Matthew was a “tax man”.

There were two varieties of tax man in the first century. Robert Kysar (b. 1934) explains:

Tax collectors were businessmen who contracted to collect revenues in a prescribed area, which they leased. In turn they hired a group of individuals who exercised the actual collections. This distinction between the major figure and his arm of collectors is suggested in the Gospels by the two titles, “chief tax collector” (architelōnēs, Luke 19:2) and the simple “tax collector” (telōnēs, Matthew 10:3). The first designated enterprising persons of some wealth (if not moral integrity). The second was used of individuals, many of whom were poor and of low social rank. They may have been driven to this unseemly work by sheer desperation. Their dirty work brought them only contempt and social discrimination, but it made a living. (Kysar, Called to Care: Biblical Images for Social Ministry, 47)

Given both Matthew’s physical and vocational position, many deduce that he was a customs official employed by the tetrarch Herod Antipas in Capernaum to collect from the nearby major thoroughfare that connected Mesopotamia to Egypt.

Though the modern equivalent is far from popular, tax men in Matthew’s day were far more despised than modern IRS agents. In Israel they were ranked with the lowest of the low, grouped with prostitutes (Matthew 21:31, 32), Gentiles (Matthew 18:17) and most commonly sinners (Matthew 9:10, 11, 11:19; Mark 2:15, 16; Luke 5:30, 7:34, 15:1). David L. Turner explains:

Tax collectors would likely be unacceptable to the Pharisees not only because of their oft-deserved reputation for extortion (cf. Luke 3:12-13) but also because of their frequent association with Gentiles. The term “sinners” (Matthew 9:11, 13; 11:19, 26:45; cf. Mark 2:14-22; Luke 5:27-39) may designate those whose behavior was egregiously ungodly, but from the Pharisaic viewpoint, it would also include those who did not observe the traditional interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Matthew 15:2) on such matters as ritual purity, food laws, and Sabbath observance. (Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) , 252)

Tax collectors were deemed reprobates because they were corrupt on multiple levels, viewed as both extortionists and traitors. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis (b. 1946) describes:

It is difficult not to see the glint of ambition in Matthew’s eye as he counts the incoming money, which we are sure contains a good percentage of the unofficially extorted. Matthew’s social standing is hence, very low. Not only does the tax collector prefer worldly gain to spiritual gain; he also works for the pagan occupying power, Rome, and is thus despised both politically and religiously by right thinking Jews...Matthew the telônês (“tax collector”), then, enjoys no social, political, or religious status in his community. He is a shady character who lives at the fringes of Jewish society. To make money by collecting others’ money cannot, even in the best of cases, elicit any philosopher’s admiration: it would be difficult to find any creative or altruistic aspect in this endeavor. (Leiva-Merikakis, Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word: Meditations on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Volume 1, 421)

As such, tax collectors were often perceived as spiritually hopeless. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) writes:

Although later Jewish tradition remarks that it would be difficult for a publican to repent (because it would be hard to make restitution; see, e.g., t. B. Mes. 8:26), it allowed that God can forgive this sin like any other...and emphasized God’s love toward the repentant...Jewish tradition already warned not to reproach one who had turned from sin (Sirach 8:5). But Pharisees, like modern churchgoers, were presumably not always what their official ethics called them to be. In the total context of Matthew’s Gospel, the informed reader ultimately recognizes that the religious establishment themselves are “sinners” (Matthew 26:45; though the term could refer to Gentiles, its immediate contextual referent is probably the priestly aristocracy). (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 297)

The assumption was that one could not be a good Jew and a tax collector. A more modern parallel is seen in the June 3, 1957 edition of Time Magazine. The publication featured a blurb about an encounter between Mickey Cohen (1914-1976) and Billy Graham during Graham’s 1949 Los Angeles crusade. (Graham himself writes of the encounter in Just As I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham, pp. 151-52). At the time, Cohen, a notorious gangster, was far mor famous than the novice evangelist. Cohen was quoted as saying, “I am very high on the Christian way of life. Billy came up, and before we had food he said—What do you call it. that thing they say before food? Grace? Yeah, grace. Then we talked a lot about Christianity and stuff.” There is a myth that after Cohen was confronted about his unchanged lifestyle, the mobster purportedly replied,“Christian football players, Christian cowboys, Christian politicians; why not a Christian gangster?”

Whether or not the story is true, it conveys truth. Christian gangster is perceived as an oxymoron just as Jewish tax collector was 2000 years ago. Michael J. Wilkins speculates:

For Matthew, discipleship has an immediate cost, for collecting taxes not only filled the coffers of the governor but also meant a lucrative income for the tax collector (cf. Zacchaeus, Luke 19:1-10). A fisherman could always go back to fishing, but it is less likely that a tax collector could return to the booth. But our author doesn’t expand on what the sacrifice entails, perhaps a subtle indication of the identity of the humble Matthew as the author of this first Gospel. (Wilkins, Matthew (The NIV Application Commentary), 365)

Could Matthew have returned to tax collecting and still professed his Christianity? What modern jobs are incompatible with Christianity? Do you reflect your religious beliefs at your job? Do you live in such a way that an outsider might not think a Christian gangster to be an oxymoron?

After Matthew accepts his calling, Jesus dines with the former tax collector and his equally reviled friends which Jesus’ opponents naturally found disgraceful (Matthew 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-31). Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) explains, “To good religious people it was scandalous that Jesus kept such bad company. His enemies ridiculed him as ‘a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’ (Matthew 11:19) (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching) 101).”

For Jesus, there was a bigger issue than his public image. David E. Garland (b. 1947) writes:

Jesus embodies God’s mercy and purpose to take away the diseases, infirmities, and sins of all the people; and the meal was a concrete expression of the acceptance of sinners. The Pharisees would have had no objection to sinners repenting. What would have been reprehensible to them was the tacit approval and forgiveness of a coven of sinners who had done nothing that would pass for traditional repentance (confession and restitution) except to follow Jesus (Matthew 9:9). (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary & Theological Commentary on the First Gospel, 103)

John Nolland explains Jesus’ rationale:

As far as the Matthean Jesus is concerned, for these people the decisive turning point has already occurred. They do not remain guilty until they prove themselves; rather, those who will come are welcomed. No ‘threshold score’ is required for entry. (Nolland, The Gospel Of Matthew: A Commentary On The Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 386)

The call of Matthew speaks to inclusiveness as a fearless Jesus eats freely with those on the margins of society. In 1573 , Paolo Veronese (1528-1588) produced a famous oil on canvas which he later titled Christ in the House of Levi. Today the painting hangs in room 10 of The Galleria dell' Accademia (Venice Academy) in Italy. The interesting aspect of this likeness is that Veronese did not set out to depict this scene. Art historians H.W. Janson (1913-1982) and Anthony F. Janson (b. 1943) chronicle:

He gave the painting its present title only after he had been summoned by the religious tribunal of the Inquisition on the charge of fillings his picture with “buffoons, drunkards, Germans, dwarfs, and similar vulgarities” unsuited to its sacred character. The account of this trial shows that the tribunal thought the painting represented the Last Supper, but Veronese’s testimony never made clear whether it was the Last Supper or the Supper in the House of Simon. To him the distinction made little difference. In the end, he settled on a convenient third title, Christ in the House of Levi which permitted him to leave the offending incidents in place. (Janson, and Janson, History of Art: The Western Tradition (6th Edition), 381)

For Veronese, it would seem there was little distinction between the meal at the tax collector’s house comprised of known sinners and the Last Supper whose guest list was filled with Jesus’ closest disciples. The title was the only real difference.

Why does Jesus dine with outcasts? Do you associate with those on the fringes of society? How can Christians be more inclusive, especially to those who come from different socio-economic backgrounds?

“God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners.” - Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard, July 7, 1838

Agag: From King to Pawn

2012-02-20T15:00:00.002-08:00

Whose life did King Saul spare even after he was told to destroy him and all his people? King Agag

During the Exodus, as the Israelites journeyed from Egypt into the Promised Land, they faced stern resistance from the Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19), descendants of Esau (Genesis 36:12; I Chronicles 1:36). Years later, the prophet Samuel informs king Saul that God has decided to repay the Amalekites for their opposition during Israel’s march to independence (I Samuel 15:1-2). The punishment was harsh - the Amalekites were to be eradicated (I Samuel 15:3).

“Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (I Samuel 15:3 NASB)

Saul summons his troops, ambushes the target and wins the battle (I Samuel 15:4-8). In the process, Saul also captures the opposing king, Agag (I Samuel 15:8). In war, as in chess, the capture of the king symbolizes victory. Saul makes Agag an exception to the rule. Instead of slaying the king as he had done to his army, Saul takes Agag alive (I Samuel 15:8).

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed. (I Samuel 15:9 NASB)

This aberration is striking. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) explains, “So significant was Saul’s action to the writer that he recounted it twice, using two different verbs to describe the same event; Saul both “took Agag king of the Amalakites alive” (I Samuel 15:8) and “spared Agag” (I Samuel 15:9) (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary: Vol. 7),169).”

There are two biblical kings named Agag (Numbers 24:7; I Samuel 15:8-33) , both Amalekites, and as such it has been posited that Agag was a dynastic name. Robert P. Gordon writes, “Agag is a name, or title (cf. Pharaoh, Candace), occurring also in Numbers 24:7 and perhaps perpetuated in the adjectival ‘Agagite’ used to describe – perhaps vilify – Haman in the book of Esther (Esther 3:1, etc.). (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Library of Biblical Interpretation), 144).”

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) speculates:

The naming of the personification of anti-Semitism, Haman, in Esther 3:1 as Agagite shows clearly that Agag became almost the type of the enemy of Yahweh and his people. Saul’s subsequent action must therefore have been regarded all the more seriously at a later time. (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 125)

By this rationale, calling Haman an “Agagite” is tantamount to calling a tyrant a Hitler-ite in today’s world with Agag corresponding to Adolf Hitler (1889-1945).

An intentional verb-subject disagreement demonstrates that Saul alone was responsible for the decision to spare Agag. Robert Alter (b. 1935) deciphers:

The Hebrew says simply “Saul and the troops spared Agag,” but because a singular verb is used with the plural subject, it signals to the audience that Saul is the principal actor and the troops only accessories. (This highlighting of the first-mentioned agent through a singular verb for a plural subject is a general feature of biblical usage.) When confronted by Samuel, Saul will turn the responsibility for the action on its head. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 78)

In short, Saul makes the call. His reasons are unknown. Some have theorized that Saul plans to make sport of the losing king as part of a victory celebration, as was often customary.

Others have seen Agag’s reprieve as an extension of the Israelites’ policy of destroying the weak and despised while keeping the best (I Samuel 15:9, 21). David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) writes:

Modern translations differ among each other in their understanding of the syntax of the phrase, literally, “the best of the sheep and the cattle and the fatlings and the lambs and all that was valuable.” The question is how far the scope of “best” extends. (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 395)

Whatever his rationale, the king’s disobedience leads to God regretting Saul’s appointment as king (I Samuel 15:10-11) and the prophet Samuel confronting Saul at Gilgal (I Samuel 15:12-23). The celebrating king clearly did not understand his failure (I Samuel 15:13, 20-21). Some have speculated that Saul’s transgression represents a misunderstanding of the scope of his orders. Francesca Aran Murphy explains:

“Utterly destroy” translates the Hebrew hrm. But did Saul know to interpret hrm as meaning destroy in the straight sense of annihilate then and there?...hrm could mean “something like ‘devote to a god by destruction.’”...Only the best meat could be used in sacrifice. King and people would not utterly destroy the best of the animals, because of this analysis their highest priority was to take the finest specimens to sacrifice to Yahweh. Gilgal was the place of sacrifice. Why go there, unless it was to sacrifice? (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 139)

When confronted, Saul repents but Samuel will not relent (I Samuel 15:24-31). Saul had been given the opportunity to demonstrate his covenant leadership by being obedient and he had failed.

Samuel then finishes Saul’s job, carving the defeated king into pieces (I Samuel 15:32-33). Noting that Agag had employed similar tactics, Samuel butchers the Amalekite.

Afterwards, the prophet and the king part ways. Saul returns to his house at Gibeah of Saul while Samuel goes to Ramah (I Samuel 15:34). The doomed king and the prophet would never again see one another on this earth.

Saul spared only the best livestock. Did he regard the opposing king as the human equivalent? Why did Saul spare only Agag? Why did God want to expunge the Amalekites?

Ultimately, in the biblical narrative, king Agag is only a pawn in the account of Saul’s rejection. In this story, the background is far more problematic than the foreground – Saul is commanded by God to commit genocide and is reprimanded for showing (albeit a small) mercy.

The great Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1875-1963) writes of an encounter he had while on a journey with an acquaintance whom he knew to be a devout Jew. As people are prone to do with clergy types, the conversation made its way to problematic biblical texts and eventually the story of Agag’s demise (I Samuel 15:1-33). Buber describes:

I told him how already at that time it horrified me to read or to remember how the heathen king went to the prophet with the words on his lips, “Surely the bitterness of death is past,” and was hewn to pieces by him. I said to my partner: “I have never been able to believe that this is a message of God. I do not believe it.” With wrinkled forehead and contracted brows, the man sat opposite me and his glance flamed into my eyes. He remained silent, began to speak, and became silent again. “So?” he broke forth at last, “so? You do not believe it?” “No,” I answered, “I do not believe it.” “So? so?” he repeated almost threateningly. “You do not believe it?” And once again: “No.”

“What. What”—he thrust the words before him one after the other—“What do you believe then?” “I believe,” without reflecting, “that Samuel has misunderstood God.” And he, again slowly, but more softly than before: “So? You believe that?” and I: “Yes.” Then we were both silent. But now something happened the like of which I have rarely seen before or since in this my long life. The angry countenance opposite me became transformed as if a hand had passed over it soothing it. It lightened, cleared, was now turned toward me bright and clear. “Well,” said the man with a positively gentle tender clarity, “I think so too.” And again we became silent, for a good while. (Buber, Meetings: Autobiographical Fragments, 52-53)

Some have taken solace in the fact that, as Buber alludes, Saul’s orders are indirect. The story’s first verse reveals a chain of command in which God speaks to Samuel and Samuel to Saul (I Samuel 15:1). The genocidal orders are not spoken directly by God but instead God is only quoted by the prophet (I Samuel 15:1-3). It is certainly easier to believe Samuel, who cut his enemy to pieces at the text’s conclusion (I Samuel 15:32-33), a monster than God. While this theory works for the story’s first panel, in its second God is seen as complicit with the prophet (I Samuel 15:10-11) which moves the criticism from the prophet’s behavior to the text’s credibility.

Does Samuel act with true divine authority or, as Buber suggests, does he confuse his own desires with God’s will? How do you handle/interpret the genocidal command of I Samuel 15:3? How do you differentiate between God’s voice and your own?

“The first point of wisdom is to discern that which is false; the second, to know that which is true.” - Lactantius (240-320), advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I (272-337)

Herodias’ Blank Cheque

2012-02-17T15:00:00.000-08:00

What did Herodias want from John the Baptist? His head (Mark 6:24)

The Synoptic gospels report that Herod Antipas ordered John the Baptist’s beheading (Matthew 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 3:19-20, 9:7-9). Matthew and Mark flashback to a decadent scene in the royal court to show how the execution transpired (Matthew 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29).

Herodias’ daughter performs a crowd pleasing dance at Herod’s birthday party (Matthew 14:7; Mark 6:21-22). To show his gratitude, Herod offers the girl “up to half my kingdom.” (Mark 6:23 NASB; cf. Matthew 14:7). In turn, the daughter consults her mother who makes her desire known – John’s head (Matthew 14:8; Mark 6:24-25).

And she went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask for?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” (Mark 6:24 NASB)

According to Mark’s gospel, which provides the most thorough account, the girl herself added the dramatic touch- “on a platter” (Mark 6:25). Presumably John is imprisoned close by because her request is granted and the prophet is put to death before the party ends (Matthew 14:9-12; Mark 6:26-28).

Herodias is depicted as the evil genius pulling strings behind the scenes. Her agency in John’s demise is poetic. John is presented as a type of Elijah (Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13) and Elijah’s nemesis was also a wicked queen, Jezebel (I Kings 18:11-13, 19:2-9).

Herodias holds a vendetta against the prophet because John had denounced the intrigues of the Herodian court, specifically her marriage (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-20; Luke 3:19). Prior to being Herod’s wide, Herodias had been married to his brother, Philip, and John had the audacity to point out the illegality of such wife swapping (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18). For those who bemoan the downfall of the family, there have always been nontraditional families and Herod’s family was more dysfunctional than most. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) chronicles:

Herod is called king [Mark 6:14], surely an ironic twist because though Antipas ruled Galilee from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39 and had pretensions to be a king, it was precisely...the request for the title...that eventually got him sent into in exile in 39 by a paranoid Caligula. In fact, he was tetrarch of the region of Galilee and Perea. Antipas must not be seen as a good Jew. Besides his forbidden marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, which was prohibited according to Leviticus 18:13 while the brother was still alive, Antipas also built his capital Tiberias on top of a pagan cemetery, something an observant Jew would never sanction. A good Jew would never even enter the city due to its uncleanness. In many ways he was a chip off the old block, being a son born to Herod the Great and his Samaritan wife Malthace in 20 B.C. (Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 213)

There is some debate as to the Bible’s accuracy in naming the principal players in this affair. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) reports:

Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the great and Mariamne, and so the niece of Herod Antipas. If by ‘Philip’ Philip the Tetrarch is meant, this contradicts Josephus who says (Antiquities XVIII.136) that Herodias was married to Herod the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II. Philip the Tetrarch actually married Salome. It would seem either Mark is mistaken, or the Herod to whom Herodias was married had also the name Philip... (Cranfield, The Gospel According To Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, 209)

On a personal note, this family needed more originality in naming its members. These potential discrepancies do not alter the text’s meaning. Sharyn Dowd (b. 1947) assures, “The evangelist...is less interested in such details than in the way his macabre interpretation of the episode can be used to foreshadow the passion of Jesus and perhaps also to suggest future suffering for Jesus’ followers, who have just been sent out on their first assignment (Dowd, Reading Mark: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Second Gospel, 66).”

Herod essentially offers Herodias’ daughter a blank cheque. While this may have been unwise, no one could have predicted her request and the offer was not unheard of in antiquity. Bas M.F. van Iersel (1924-1999) comments, “That he offers her half his kingdom is not unusual at a royal court, especially when the king has had a drop too much. King Ahasuerus addresses Esther twice in the same way in Esther 5:3, where the king is impressed by her beauty, and in Esther 7:2 where he has had some wine (van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (Library Of New Testament Studies), 222).”

Many blame the women for John’s untimely demise and see the tale as an exemplar of William Congreve (1670-1729)’s famous line:

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.
-Congreve, “The Mourning Bride”, Act III, Scene VIII, 1697)

Tellingly, Herod does not denounce the women, instead taking personal responsibility for the prophet’s death (Mark 6:16; Luke 9:19).

Though John was correct, was he correct to speak? Was this the hill on which he should have chosen to die? Were you Herodias’ daughter, what would you have asked for? Who was most responsible for the death of John the Baptist? Why was John killed?

John was not executed because of his message. The prophet was only arrested because of his proclamation. Josephus (37-100) attributed John’s death to his being perceived as a political threat (Antiquities of the Jews 18.116-118). In response, Vincent Taylor (1887-1968) reasons that “political ends and the anger of an insulted woman cannot be regarded as mutually exclusive (Mark, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, 311).”

The true cause of John’s death was peer pressure. Herodias could not tolerate the prophet’s public denouncement of her character as it could lead to public backlash and threaten her status (Mark 6:18-19). In response, Herod wanted to kill John instantly but abstained because he feared “the crowd” (Matthew 14:5). The witless dancing daughter was willing to succumb to any pressure so long she pleased and unfortunately she chose to dance to her mother’s tune. Then, having given the daughter carte blanche, Herod was more afraid of how he would look in front of his dinner guests than he was of killing an innocent man (Matthew 14:9; Mark 14:26). The only one in the story unconcerned with appearances is John the Baptist.

Do you think Herodias’ daughter ever had buyer’s remorse or was she pleased with her choice? To what extent are you willing to go to appease your friends? What message influences you most: Jesus’ message or the competing messages of the world?

“The logic of worldly success rests on a fallacy: the strange error that our perfection depends on the thoughts and opinions and applause of other men! A weird life it is, indeed, to be living always in somebody else’s imagination, as if that were the only place in which one could at last become real!” - Thomas Merton (1915-1968), The Seven Storey Mountain, p. 362

The Man of God and The Old Prophet

2012-02-14T15:00:00.000-08:00

What happened to the man of God who had been sent to deliver a message and return home without eating or drinking? He disobeyed and was killed by a lion (I Kings 13:24)

When Israel split, the southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem, the religious epicenter (I Kings 12:26-27). To ensure that his constituents would not need to cross the border to worship, Jeroboam, ruler of the northern kingdom, Israel, erected altars at Dan and Bethel (I Kings 12:28-30). It is in this context that the Man of God enters the biblical narrative (I Kings 13:1-32).

The Man of God’s story is told in two parts (I Kings 13:1-10, 11-32). He strides into Bethel from Judah where he finds Jeroboam burning incense on the unauthorized altar (I Kings 13:1). The Man of God promptly condemns the altar (I Kings 13:2) and his words are validated when he produces a double miracle in which the idolatrous king’s hand is both cursed and cured (I Kings 13:4-6). Before leaving, the Man of God emphatically declines an invitation to dine with the king stating that God had prohibited it (I Kings 13:8-9).

“For so it was commanded me by the word of the LORD, saying, ‘You shall eat no bread, nor drink water, nor return by the way which you came.’” (I Kings 13:9 NASB)

This was a smash and grab job and the Man of God was not to dawdle in Bethel.

The Man of God’s second story arc begins where the first ends when an Old Prophet’s sons relay the Man of God’s exploits (I Kings 13:11-32). Presumably impressed, the Old Prophet and his sons caught the Man of God on his way out of town and asked him to dine (I Kings 13:14-15). The Man of God again notes that he is under strict divine orders not eat or drink on the trip (I Kings 13:8-9, 16-17).

The Old Prophet convinces the Man of God that he is a prophet who has received orders that supercede the Man of God’s and that the Man of God should eat with him (I Kings 13:18-19). While dining, the “word of the Lord” came upon the Old Prophet and he uttered an ominous portent claiming that the Man of God had disobeyed orders and would not make it home alive (I Kings 13:20-22). The prophecy comes to fruition as a lion kills the Man of God on his way home though it devours neither the Man of God nor his donkey (I Kings 13:24-25). The Old Prophet retrieves the Man of God’s corpse and insists that the Man of God be buried in his family tomb (I Kings 13:27-30). He also insists that when the day comes, his sons bury him with the Man of God (I Kings 13:31-32).

The Man of God’s instructions are simple: he was given dining restrictions and told to return home by another way. Inexplicably everyone he encounters offers him sustenance. (Why would his adversary Jeroboam do this?) The Man of God faces two tests, acing the first and flunking the next. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) sumarizes, “The man of God from Judah proclaims God’s word in declaring the folly of Jeroboam, but then chooses the way of folly himself in disobeying what he knows to be God’s word given to him (Konkel, 1 and 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 244).”

The story is complex and perplexing. Renowned theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) called I Kings 13 “perhaps the most expressive and at any rate the most comprehensive prophetic story in the Old Testament (Church Dogmatics II.2" The Doctrine of God, 409).”

The hero is anonymous much like Clint Eastwood in Sergio Leone’s “Dollars Trilogy” (1964-66) or more recently Ryan Gosling in Drive (2011). His non-name is emphasized as “the Man of God” is repeated 17 times in the text (I Kings 13:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31). Fittingly, the mysterious figure is juxtaposed with an anonymous adversary, the Old Prophet (I Kings 13:11).
Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) writes:

Commentators often point out that none of the main characters of the story are named...One effect of this technique is to highlight geography. By virtue of his designation, the man of God becomes representative of Judah, while the old prophet stands for Bethel and Israel, suggesting that the whole history of Israel and Judah is somehow foreshadowed in this chapter. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 98-99)

The only biographical detail given about the Man of God is his place of origin, Judah (I Kings 13:1, 12, 14, 21). This speaks to the era’s and the story’s fundamental conflict - a man from Judah enters Bethel.

In spite of his final failure, the Man of God, as both his moniker and homeland suggest, is a legitimate divine emissary. Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) writes:

The center of the narrative is the surprising fact that the lion killed the man but did not eat him. This exceptional behavior of the animal is used to explain the special holiness of the man of God that leads to his burial in a foreign land and the special honor attached to his grave. The corpse possesses a special dignity, because the lion has not touched it; the lion reveals the special status of the man of God and so he is buried by the prophet in his own grave and lamented by him. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary,151)

Gene Rice (b. 1925) adds:

He was heroic in obedience to the command to deliver—at great risk to himself—the prophecy against the altar at Bethel, but accepted too readily the alleged revelation of another that contradicted the revelation God had given him. The authentic word of God often seems extreme and unreasonable, and how adept we are in finding reasons to disobey it. The fate of the man of God from Judah is also a word of the LORD, namely, that obedience is a matter of life and death. (Rice, 1 Kings: Nations Under God (International Theological Commentary), 115)

The fact that the man who dies is not the principal evildoer is just one of many difficulties with the text. None of the characters’ motives are given even though there are more inexplicable than understandable actions. The text is also replete with moral ambiguity.

James L. Crenshaw (b. 1934) identifies another difficulty as he laments that “it must be declared that this passage deals the death knell to every attempt to specify absolute criteria by which to differentiate the true from the false prophet, for the ultimate criterion to which contemporary scholarship appeals (the charismatic intuition of a true prophet) fails in this instance (Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion, 47-48).”

Richard Nelson (b. 1945) summarizes:

The story of the man of God from Judah and the old prophet in Bethel is notoriously problematic for modern readers. The blunt designation of Josiah by name (I Kings 13:2) is so obviously a prophecy made after the fact that the narrative is bast into immediate disrepute for the historically inclined. As a moral tale it is patently offensive. Trickery trumps over the servant of God and the living prophet is rewarded in the end. Is this a crude, insensitive God who violates our ideas of justice? (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 83-83)

What do you find problematic about this story? Why does the man of God fail? Does he presume that someone would not lie about being a prophet? Why does the Old Prophet lie? Why are there seemingly no consequences for his lie? Why does the lion kill but not eat the Man of God? What is the point of the story?

While I Kings 13 raises many questions, its main thrust can be determined. The postscript to the story relays that despite the encounter with the Man of God, Jeroboam did not alter his altars (I Kings 13:33-34). This end stress conveys the story’s primary meaning and represents the first of many assaults on Jeroboam’s policies in the books of Kings. Paul R. House (b. 1958) concludes:

Basically, 1 Kings 13 continued the book’s emphases on proper worship, the prophetic word, and the slow demise of the covenant people. It also begins to analyze the difference between true and false prophecy (House, The New American Commentary, Vol. 8: 1, 2 Kings, 188-189).”

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) adds:

The issue of true and false prophecy is secondary to the larger concern with discrediting Beth El. Tensions between Judah and northern Israel come clearly to the forefront when the narrative depicts the old prophet from Beth El as a liar who deceives the Judean man of G-d into violating G-d’s commission. (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 181).”

In some ways the story serves as a cautionary tale. The Man of God is held accountable for his actions even though he is deceived. If God would rebuke the Man of God for disobedience how much more so the dissident king?

The Man of God stood as a witness against Jeroboam in both life and death. The story’s true postscript comes many chapters later when the Man of God’s prophecy is fulfilled during the reign of Josiah (II Kings 23:1-30). When Josiah finally obliterates Jeroboam’s idols, he uncovers a tomb of two prophets (II Kings 23:15-20). The tomb served as a reminder that the false worship had been doomed from the start.

Is it significant that the Man of God and the Old Prophet are buried together? Are there any notable tombs or monuments near year? What are they saying? Where does false worship exist today?

“The noblest worship is to make yourself as good and as just as you can.” - Isocrates (436-338 BCE)

Mission Impossible: Abishai

2012-02-13T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who went with David by night to Saul’s tent and took his spear and water jug? Abishai (I Samuel 26:6)

Before David was a king, he was an outlaw (I Samuel 19:1-31:6). A paranoid king Saul relentlessly pursued him throughout Israel (I Samuel 19:1-26:25). Even in David’s exile, a loyal band of mercenaries stood by the refugee future king.

While a fugitive, David’s spies divulged Saul’s position at the hill of Hachilah (I Samuel 26:4). After confirming the location, David undertook a covert mission to break Saul’s camp (I Samuel 26:5-6). The mission might be perceived as a suicide mission as the “plan” was to go to the heart of the camp to the king himself (I Samuel 26:6). Saul was flanked by 3000+ armed and dangerous men (I Samuel 24:2, 26:2) including his commander Abner (I Samuel 26:5).

David asked two from his militia if they would accompany him. Only Abishai chooses to accept the mission.

Then David said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, saying, “Who will go down with me to Saul in the camp?” And Abishai said, “I will go down with you.” (I Samuel 26:6 NASB)

David offers no objective for the mission, only the option to go. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) speculates:

Under the cloak of darkness, David may have been going there to gather additional information about the one who threatened him (cf. Judges 7:10-15). His covert efforts were rewarded, for he was able to identify the key personnel leading the forces as well as the exact location and arrangement of the camp: on this expedition Saul was accompanied by his cousin Abner. The arrangement of Saul’s camp, combined with the location of the camp at the top of the hill, would have provided Saul with maximum protection. (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary: Vol. 7), 255)

Ahimelech the Hittite, the soldier who by his silence tacitly refused the mission, is not mentioned again in Scripture. In contrast, Abishai’s bravery (or perhaps foolishness) portends his later importance.

This incident marks the Bible’s first reference to the sons of Zeruiah, David’s sister’s children (I Chronicles 2:16). Robert Alter (b. 1935) characterizes, “David the warrior chieftain is surrounded by his three nephews, the three bloody-minded sons of Zeruiah: two of them impetuous (Abishai and Asahel), the third, who is David’s commander, ruthlessly calculating (Joab) (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 163).”

The bloodthirsty brothers were fiercely loyal to David (more so than Israel). As such, they have been viewed as the counterpart to Jesus and the sons of Zebedee (Mark 3:17, 9:38-41, 10:35-40). A comparable modern fighting family might be the Gracie family. The sons of Zeruiah were the type of men anyone would want on their side in a fight.

Abishai had a decorated military career. He served in the elite corps of “mighty men” of David’s army (II Samuel 23:18,19; I Chronicles 11:20, 21) and proved a brilliant field commander who headed one of the three divisions of David’s army in his battle with Absalom (II Samuel 18:2, 5, 12). In one legendary battle, the famed warrior slew three hundred men with his spear (II Samuel 23:18; I Chronicles 11:20).

Who is your most loyal friend? What is the objective of David’s covert mission? Why does David take Abishai: protector, witness, other? Why does Abishai consent? What does he hope to gain from the experience?

Inexplicably, Abishai and David broke Saul’s camp undetected and came to the sleeping Saul (I Samuel 26:7). Abishai offered to off the vulnerable king (I Samuel 26:8).

Then Abishai said to David, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore, please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.” (I Samuel 26:8 NASB)

In an instant, the prey became the hunter. In requesting the honor of killing Saul, the confident warrior offered to eliminate David’s rival with one swift lethal blow, pinning the king to the ground with his spear. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) notes, “Abishai’s sense of urgency...is conveyed by his ‘today’ and his ‘now’ (Longman, 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 256).” This is not surprising as Abishai is always quick to act (II Samuel 16:9-10, 19:21-23).

This was the second opportunity David had to eliminate his rival (I Samuel 24:1-22, 26:6-12). Abishai verbalizes the temptation, even agreeing to do David’s dirty work for him. Abishai’s proposal echoes the words of David’s men at the time when he previously spared the king (I Samuel 24:4, 26:8).

As he had before, David refused to kill Saul (I Samuel 26:9-11). God might deal with Saul but David would not interfere. Instead, he confiscated Saul’s spear and water jug as evidence of his mercy (I Samuel 26:12). Saul’s spear, which had narrowly missed David’s head three times (I Samuel 18:11, 19:10, 20:33), was the visible sign of Saul’s power and rank. The jug was indicative of sustenance, the source of life. The seized spear would later serve as evidence of David’s goodwill (I Samuel 26:22).

Though it is not surprising that a son of Zeruiah would seek a violent resolution, Abishai’s response is the natural one. Surely the risk of the mission was not taken simply to procure souvenirs. In Abishai’s mind, God had given him the opportunity to instantaneously end the conflict and he ought to seize it. It is David’s response that is counter-cultural. Francesca Aran Murphy explains:

Abishai thinks of murder; David does not. The single, deadly spear thrust proposed by Abishai is more redolent of death than anything that happened at En-gedi [I Samuel 24:1-22] or even in the Nabal story [I Samuel 25:1-25]. Somewhat as he had restrained his toughs as they mingled with Nabal’s shepherds, so now David restrains Abishai...God is alive, David tells Abishai, and has given him two providential signs, the spear and the water jug, Saul’s weapon and water carrier. These iron and bronze implements of life and death are a sign to David that Saul’s life is spent. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 245)

A presumably dumbfounded Abishai offers no response to David. The young warrior would not see battle in this encounter. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) notes:

Abishai has no opportunity of assisting David in action. The Lord himself has taken care that no one wakes by means of a stupefying sleep (tardēmā) which he has spread over everyone...Abishai is merely...the tempter, through whom the theological concern of the narrative is brought out. (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 209-210)

In the heart of Saul’s camp, David’s temptation came in the form of one of his most loyal subjects.

Why does David resist the temptation to eliminate his competition? What well-meaning friend has tempted you?

“There are many devils...the one which is tempting you now is not the least of all to be feared...Beware of it; it is a demon more beautiful than Apollo — liberty, patriotism, men’s happiness, all these words vibrate like harp-strings at its approach; it is the sound of the silver scales of its flaming wings.” - Alfred De Musset (1810-1857), Lorenzaccio, 1833, p. 94

Commandment #6: Thou Shalt Not...?

2012-02-09T15:00:00.000-08:00

What is the sixth commandment? Thou shalt not kill [Thou shalt not do murder] (Exodus 20:13)

Written in a distinctive terse style, the Ten Commandments are set apart as foundational, given by no less an authority than the very hand of God (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:4-21). The commandments can be divided into sets of five with the second group addressing life in community (Exodus 20:13-17; Deuteronomy 5:17-21). The shift occurs with the sixth commandment.

You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13 NASB; cf. Deuteronomy 5:17).

This commandment is the first to address a relationship among equals and affirms that the protection of human life is the starting point of living in community.

One could hardly derive a more natural, universal law as the taking of life has been objectionable throughout the annals of history. The clarity of the sixth commandment is seen in the fact that (unlike many of its counterparts) the prohibition contains no explanation or threat of consequences. Its merits are self evident.

Yet not all killings are viewed the same. For instance, murder is a singular sin. W.H. Auden (1907-1973) writes, “Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness; it is the one crime in which society has a direct interest (Auden, “The Guilty Vicarage: Notes on the Detective Story by an Addict”, Harper’s Magazine, 1948, 406).”

The sixth commandment has been cited in arguments regarding abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, self-defense, suicide, war, etc. The forbidden action (ratsach) is typically translated as either “murder” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “kill” (ASV, KJV, RSV). Though not an uncommon term, this is the first time word is used in the Bible.

The scope of the term is not rigidly bounded. If anything, the Hebrew muddies the waters further. Patrick D. Miller (b. 1935) expounds:

The simplicity of the commandment fades quickly as soon as one tries to translate it. Matters become more complex when one tries to relate the prohibition to actual acts of taking life...The commandment consists of a negative particle, “do not,” and the second-person imperfect of the verb rāṣaḥ. The precise meaning of this verb, however, is where the complexities arise. The divided voice of the NRSV translation committee, which split down the middle on the matter, is indicative of the issue and its complexity. Usually the commandment is translated either “You shall not kill”...or “You shall not murder”...More recent translations have tended toward the latter interpretation, recognizing that the verb of the commandment is a more particular and specialized verb, a more technical term in a sense, than others commonly translated in English as “kill”...or “put to death”...The problem, however, is that the verb does not have a single narrow meaning or usage “to murder.” The matter is more complicated, and the force of the verb as it is examined on its trajectory of meaning and usage in the Scriptures broadens toward a wider understanding from the very beginning. Thus the tension between a narrower and a wider interpretation of the verb is an inevitable and the locus of the community’s effort to comprehend and obey the commandment (Miller, The Ten Commandments (Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church), 221-223)

Peter Enns (b. 1961) adds:

The Hebrew word translated “murder”...is a common one in the Old Testament. It is a restricted term, generally referring to the killing of someone who is not an “enemy” of the people. In other words, it is not used in contexts of war or just punishment for a crime. It can, however, refer to unintentional killing (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:41-43), a circumstance in which “murder” is not an appropriate term...at the very least we can state that this commandment refers to any type of killing that God disallows. Just what that means is, again, a matter of wise reflection on the part of Israelite leaders. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 422)

Though the Hebrew verb is different (harag, not ratsach), it is said that there is a “a time to kill” (Ecclesiastes 3:3). When is taking life acceptable? Why? What makes this Biblical commandment any different from the countless other mandates against killing in virtually every society in human history?

While the biblical rule reads the same as those in other cultures, the rationale is different. Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) explains, “The basis of the command is that all life belongs to God (Leviticus 17:11; Genesis 9:6). The divine intention in creation is that no life be taken. Life is thus not for human beings to do with as they will; they are not God. It is to God to determine what shall be done with life (Fretheim, Exodus: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 233).”

After researching countless comparable laws in parallel cultures, Mark F. Rooker (b. 1951) concludes:

Differences between ancient Near Eastern and biblical views of murder are ultimately connected to their contrastive views of the nature of God and man. Although the literature of Mesopotamia considered murder to be a severe iniquity, which aroused the anger of the gods, man was considered as part of the creation and nothing more than an economic value. He was created to be a servant of the gods. Another contrast has to do with payment of a fine as punishment for a convicted murderer. In most of ancient Near Eastern law, the acceptance of a ransom or a fine was dependent completely on the will of the relatives of the murder victim. Biblical law prohibited acceptance of a ransom or fine for a murder that happened with malice or by accident (Numbers 35:31; Deuteronomy 19:12). This distinction shows that the Bible places a high premium on the life of man because man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). (Rooker, The Ten Commandments: Ethics for the Twenty-First Century, 123)

The sixth commandment’s underlying belief is that life comes from God and as such is precious. David Hazony (b. 1969) wonders:

From violence in our streets to terror in our skies, from honor killings to organized crime to wartime atrocities to domestic violence, we tolerate murder to a breathtaking degree. Not so long ago, the most enlightened nation in Europe embarked on the most far-reaching plan of genocide in human history, exterminating its innocents by the millions as the world stood by. Today, similar wickedness is repeated elsewhere in the world, in places like Sudan and Rwanda, places where if we really cared we would stop the killing. Our collective Western pride blinds us to our collective failure to stop the worst crimes. Do we really care about life as much as we think? (Hazony, The Ten Commandments: How Our Most Ancient Moral Text Can Renew Modern Life, 145)

Do you truly value life as much as you should?

“How strange it is that murder has the sanction of law in one and only one of the human relationships, and that is the most important of all, that of nation to nation.”
Paul Harris (1868-1947), lawyer who founded the Rotary Club in 1905

The Cost of Alabaster

2012-02-07T15:00:00.000-08:00

What kind of box (or jar) held the ointment which the woman poured on Jesus’ head? Alabaster (Matthew 26:7)

In Matthew’s gospel, the first event of Passion week occurs when a woman anoints Jesus’ head with expensive perfume while he dines in Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13). Similar incidents occur in all four gospels (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:1-9, Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8) but there are enough discrepancies between the accounts that scholars debate exactly how many times Jesus was actually anointed.

In the Synoptic gospels, the perfume is extracted from an alabastron (Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:37).

a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. (Matthew 26:7 NASB)

The word alabastron is used in the New Testament only in connection with Jesus’ anointing. The term encompasses both the type of material as well as the form of the container. Hence the word is rendered variously “alabaster jar” (HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), “alabaster flask” (ESV, NKJV, RSV), “alabaster box” (KJV), “alabaster cruse” (ASV), “alabaster vial” (NASB) and more simply “bottle” (CEV, MSG).

Martha Jean Mugg Bailey (b. 1957) apprises that alabaster is “a firm, very fine-grained, variety of gypsum, used for statuary and as indoor decorative stone, especially for carved ornamental vases and figurines...The biblical terms translated alabaster...may also refer to marble, although alabaster probably entered Israel from Egypt much earlier than marble was imported from the Greek world (David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 39.”

Alabaster containers were ideal receptacles for perfume. W.D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) inform, “According to Pliny, N.H. 13.3, ‘perfumes are best kept in alabaster vases’, and archaeology confirms that the stone, often imported from Egypt was frequently made into handleless perfume flasks. The necks were typically long and thin (Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (International Critical Commentary) Volume III: XIX-XVIII, 444).”

Though in modern English, “alabaster” is most commonly used in reference to skin as a synonym for pale, not all alabaster was white. John A. Broadus (1827-1895) chronicles:

Some kinds of alabaster are of delicate and richly varied hues, and are extremely beautiful and costly. The Jews, like all the other civilized ancient peoples, made much use of fragrant ointment, often rare and of great price; and the flasks which contained it were of great variety as to material and shape...It was, with its contents, a tasteful and costly object, such as a woman would delight in possessing (Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, 519)

While the container was consequential, its imported contents were equally prized. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) notes that though anointing a dinner guest was not uncommon, the woman’s extravagance was.

Hosts of banquets customarily provided oil to anoint the heads of guests of notable social status ...but the outpouring of love here is more costly than the mere use of oil in customary acts of hospitality...They would seal the ointment to prevent evaporation, requiring the long neck of the jar to be broken and the ointment to be expended at once...Archaeologists have uncovered such long-necked flasks in first-century tombs near Jerusalem, suggesting the frequent once-for-all expenditure of this expensive perfume at the death of loved ones ...Nard was a costly ointment imported from India...or elsewhere in the east...and its expense might suggest an heirloom passed from one generation to the next. (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 618)

Because of its monetary value, in three of the gospels, the woman faces criticism for the way she chose to allocate her resources (Matthew 26:8-9; Mark 14:4-5; John 12:4). It is posed that the perfume could have been better used by liquidating her liquid asset and dispersing the funds. In each account the woman’s action is personally affirmed by Jesus himself (Matthew 26:10-13; Mark 14:6-9; John 12:7-8). In Matthew and Mark, as many verses are devoted to Jesus’ praise of the woman as are spent on describing the action itself.

Why was anointing Jesus a better choice than taking the cash value of the alabaster jar and dispersing it amongst the poor? Why does the woman do as she does?

For the woman, the alabaster jar was likely a treasured possession and possibly an heirloom. Many have speculated that the woman was saving it for a very special occasion. Jackie Kendall (b.1950) conjectures:

In the days of Jesus, when a young woman reached the age of availability for marriage, her family would purchase an alabaster box for her and fill it with precious ointment. The size of the box and the value of the ointment would parallel her family’s wealth. This alabaster box would be part of her dowry. When the young man came to ask for her in marriage, she would respond by taking the alabaster box and breaking it at his feet. The gesture of anointing his feet showed him honor. (Kendall, Say Goodbye to Shame: And 77 Other Stories of Hope and Encouragement, 156)

While Kendall’s writing is speculative, what is not supposition is the woman’s sacrifice. In Mark’s version of the anointing, the woman needed to shatter the jar like a piggy bank to use its contents (Mark 14:3). When the moment was over, she had nothing left of her treasure. The high cost of the woman’s sacrifice is set in stark contrast to the relatively cheap payment Jesus’ betrayer received for his complicity in the gospel’s next story (Matthew 26:15, 27:3, 9).

Does it matter how the woman acquired the perfume? What are you saving for just the proper occasion? What is the greatest sacrifice you have made for anyone? For God?

“You can sacrifice and not love. But you cannot love and not sacrifice.” - Kris Vallotton (b. 1955)

Orpah: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

2012-02-06T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who was Ruth’s sister-in-law who stayed behind in Moab? Orpah (Ruth 1:4)

While living in Moab due to a famine in Judah (Ruth 1:1-2), Naomi’s two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, marry Moabite women (Ruth 1:3) named Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:4, 14). The two women are contrasted from the time they enter the text until Orpah’s departure (Ruth 1:14).

They took for themselves Moabite women as wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. And they lived there about ten years. (Ruth 1:4 NASB)

Robert L. Hubbard notes that “these names occur nowhere else in the Old Testament; indeed, it is uncertain whether they are Moabite or Hebrew. Although the names’ genuineness need not be doubted, the meaning of Orpah remains an unsolved mystery (Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 94).” Though the name’s meaning is unknown and it is uncommon, Orpah is actually the name that appears on Oprah Winfrey’s birth certificate as her aunt Ida plucked it from the pages of the Bible.

When Naomi and her daughters-in-law lose their husbands (Ruth 1:3, 5), the trio is faced with another crisis - how to proceed. The sense is that after ten years together (Ruth 1:4), they have grown close and do not wish to leave each other’s company (Ruth 1:9, 14).

Inexplicably, Naomi waits until they are already en route to Judah to advise her daughters-in-law to stay in Moab (Ruth 1:6-7). Twice, the mother-in-law appeals to Orpah and Ruth to return home (Ruth 1:8-9, 11-13). From Naomi’s perspective, she has nothing to offer her loved ones as a woman’s security and value came from a husband or sons and she was out of both. While her only option is to return to her homeland, Judah, Naomi realizes that her daughters-in-laws’ prospects are bleak there. Carol Ann Newsom (b. 1950) and Sharon H. Ringe explain, “Not only are Orpah and Ruth Moabites and so members of an already stigmatized nation, their marriages are childless when the sons die ten years later. Supposedly a land of plenty, Moab proves to be sterility and death (Newsom and Ringe, The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition,85).”

On the surface, for Orpah and Ruth, all signs lead to Moab. Returning home represents the only sensible course of action as Moab held the probability of a normal life while the prospects of remaining with Naomi are replete with uncertainty. Knowing as much, Naomi advises her charges to return to Moab (Ruth 1:8, 12). Because of this advice, some have questioned Naomi’s faith in Yahweh and God’s ability to redeem her family.

Naomi’s second appeal is evidently convincing as her words strike a chord with Orpah. Orpah’s rationale mirrors The Clash’s catchy 1982 single:

Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double

After weighing her options, Orpah literally kisses Naomi goodbye (Ruth 1:14).

And they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. (Ruth 1:14 NASB)

While Orpah leaves, Ruth cleaves. Ostensibly, Ruth is reckless while Orpah plays it safe and opts for the more sensible choice.

Naomi’s disappointment is palpable. She goes from calling Orpah “my daughter” (Ruth 1:12) to “your-sister-in law” (Ruth 1:15) and it is telling that it is Orpah who kisses Naomi and not vice versa (Ruth 1:14).

Traditionally, Ruth is lauded while Orpah is maligned. Orpah returns to her people and more importantly reverts to her gods (Ruth 1:15) while Ruth makes an act of faith towards Israel’s God (Ruth 1:16-17). With this choice, Orpah is written out of the biblical text never to be referenced again while Ruth will become the great grandmother of king David (Ruth 4:17) and will ultimately have a biblical book named after her. André Lacocque (b. 1927) relays this traditional view, writing, “The literal obedience of Orpah to Naomi’s orders has incalculable consequences of future deprivation for Chilion’s family line. Because Orpah has missed the turning point of history in chapter 1 of the narrative, Chilion’s death is a double death (Lacocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary, 35).”

Had Orpah stayed with the group, how would the story have played out? Would Ruth have “clung” to Naomi if Orpah had not just left? Given the same options, how would you have chosen? Is there a place for playing it safe in the life of faith? Just because Ruth chose well, does it mean that Orpah chose poorly? For Ruth to be right does Orpah need be wrong?

The text itself neither criticizes nor congratulates Orpah and technically speaking, it is she, not Ruth, who obeys her mother-in-law. Kirsten Nielsen (b. 1943) informs:

It is characteristic that the author passes no judgment on Orpah, leaving this to the reader. Sooner or later a reader is bound to react negatively. Thus in the Midrash Ruth Rabbah we find the brutal account of Orpah on her return journey being raped by a hundred men and a dog. Here we are left in no doubt as to what to think of Orpah, though according to the narrator of Ruth she does only what her mother-in-law insists on. (Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 48)

Hubbard counters, reminding that the reader is not privy to the rest of Orpah’s story. He writes:

May one fault Orpah for unforgivable disloyalty to Naomi? On the contrary, the narrator avoids criticizing her. In fact, her departure merits some praise as an obedient daughter who properly accepted Naomi’s wise counsel. Were the story to follow her future, it might report Yahweh’s fulfillment of Naomi’s good wishes (Ruth 1:8-9). Her choice only highlights how extraordinary was Ruth’s conduct. That is the narrator’s point: Orpah did the sensible, expected thing, Ruth the extraordinary and unexpected (Hubbard ,115-16).

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (b. 1953) notes that from a literary perspective, Orpah is in the same spot in the first chapter as the kinsman-redeemer finds himself in the book’s final chapter:

While Orpah serves as a foil to Ruth in the story heightening the contrast, the narrator does not criticize Orpah’s decision. She is not portrayed negatively; the reader is given good reason for her decision and little other information. It is not that Ruth is right and Orpah is wrong per se. Rather, the actions of Orpah make Ruth appear that much more positive (the unnamed nearer kinsman-redeemer will serve the same function in relation to Boaz in Ruth 4). (Younger Judges, Ruth (The NIV Application Commentary) , 423)

Adele Berlin (b. 1943) concurs:

In the case of Orpah, both she and Ruth initially react the same way, expressing reluctance to leave Naomi. Only after prolonged convincing does Orpah take her leave, and, of course, Ruth’s determination to remain with Naomi becomes, in the eyes of the reader, all the more heroic. The two were first made to appear similar—they were both Moabite wives of brothers, both childless widows, both loyal to their mother-in-law. Only gradually is the difference between them developed, and when it is, the effect is dramatic and moving. (Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 85)

Ruth’s decision is exceptional and Orpah serves a reminder that not everyone would have acted as she did.

Have you ever been compared with another to make one of you appear more impressive? Why does Ruth make the decision that she does? When have you taken the road less traveled?

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
-Robert Frost (1874–1963), “The Road Not Taken” Mountain Interval 1916.

Boaz’s Shoe Deal

2012-02-02T15:00:00.000-08:00

To seal a contract, a man took off something and gave it to the other person. What was this? His shoe [sandal] (Ruth 4:8)

According to the custom of the day, before Boaz could legally marry Ruth he needed to get a release from a nearer related kinsman, known as a “guardian-redeemer”or “kinsman-redeemer” (Ruth 3:12-13). Even after this unnamed man decided that it was not financially viable for him to redeem Ruth (Ruth 4:1-6), to make the process legal, Boaz needed to seal the deal with a strange ritual. In a tradition that is perhaps comparable to the modern spit handshake or pinky swear, a shoe was removed and exchanged to ratify the agreement (Ruth 4:7-8).

Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning the redemption and the exchange of land to confirm any matter: a man removed his sandal and gave it to another; and this was the manner of attestation in Israel. (Ruth 4:7 NASB)

After this procedure was followed (Ruth 4:8), every bond was broken between the kinsman redeemer and Ruth and consequently Boaz was legally free to marry her (Ruth 4:9-10).

The fact that the author described the custom in an aside to the reader indicates that this means of authentication was as foreign to the original readers as it is to its contemporary counterparts. Kirsten Nielsen (b. 1943) explains, “In order to follow the course of events the reader must be told that there was a particular custom linked to the closing of an agreement in ancient Israel. The custom...is clearly no longer in use, but the audience is to understand that at the time it was legally binding (Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 82).”

The text is ambiguous regarding exactly which party removed their na`al, which is translated both generically as “shoe” (ASV, KJV, MSG) and specifically as “sandal” CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). André Lacocque (b. 1927) writes of the footwear:

The sandal...in question here derives from the Hebrew root...which means “locked” (closed with a strap), as in Song of Solomon 4:12. Here, and there, one can see an erotic allusion, which is also not absent from Deuteronomy 25:5-10...“The shoe is namely a symbol of the law, of judicial process. Already in ancient Egypt, the sandal was the symbol of power, authority.” (Lacocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary, 133)

Many have read this exchange through the lens of levirate marriage, a mandate by which a brother of a deceased man was obligated to marry his brother’s widow in hopes of continuing the dead brother’s line (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Tod Linafelt (b. 1965) writes that “one cannot overlook the resonance of this sandal ceremony with the strikingly similar ceremony in the context of levirate marriage (Linafelt and Beal, Ruth and Esther (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 71).”

If a man refused a levirate marriage, the woman was to pull the sandal off of his foot and spit in his face (Deuteronomy 25:9)! As such, some have seen the kinsman-redeemer as disgracing Ruth. Victor H. Matthews (b. 1950) counters:

There is no sense in this passage that the next of kin is humiliated by this exchange. Having been presented with the economic factors involved in redeeming the field and acquiring the responsibility for Ruth, he makes a business decision not to accept this responsibility. Although this is a public declaration, it does not appear to damage his social standing. It merely gives Boaz the legal right to step in as redeemer. (Matthews, Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 240)

For the kinsman-redeemer, the business of marriage was all business. Perhaps this is why Boaz went to great lengths to ensure that his union with Ruth was legitimate and properly documented (Ruth 4:1-12).

How do we seal contracts today? What unique customs do Americans follow that might seem strange to outsiders? How are modern marriage contracts ratified? Have you ever questioned these practices (e.g. the marriage license, wedding ceremony, etc.)? Why did the terms of this contract “have to be the shoes”?

In her book Jews and Shoes, Edna Nahshon writes

the ceremonial nature of the transaction makes it clear that the shoe was not used as a barter in a quid pro quo exchange but in a legal/symbolic capacity. Some scholars...link the shoe scene with an Arab form of divorce in which the male removes his shoe and declares “She [the wife] was my slipper; I have cast her off,” and to the Arabic use of na’l (shoe) in the sense of “wife of the husband”...Jacob Nacht, writing in 1915, cites a shoe ceremony practiced among some of the Jews then living in Palestine where it was customary for the bridegroom to send a shoemaker to the bride’s house to prepare shoes for the bride and female family members, this indicating that a date for the wedding had been set. (Nahshon, Jews and Shoes, 4-5)

Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (b. 1943) adds:

In the Old Testament “feet” and “shoes” symbolized power, possession, and domination (Joshua 10:24, Psalm 8:6, 60:8, 108:9). When Moses removed his shoes (Exodus 3:5; cf. Joshua 5:15), he acknowledged Yahweh’s lordship; when David walked barefoot, he showed his powerlessness and humiliation (II Samuel 15:30; cf. Isaiah 20:2-4; Ezekiel 24:17, 23). Feet and shoes also played symbolic roles in ancient property transactions. According to the Nuzi texts, for example, to validate a transfer of real estate the old owner would lift up his foot from the property and place the new owner’s foot on it. In the Old Testament, to “set foot” on the land was associated with ownership of it (Deuteronomy 1:36, 11:24; Joshua 1:3, 14:9). Therefore, the sandal transfer in Ruth 4:7 may be a symbolic offspring of such ancient customs. If so, the practice had come a long way: originally associated with transfers of land ownership, in Israel the custom had become a symbol for other transactions as well. (Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 251)

Though the practice seems strange, the theoretical framework is not entirely different from modern contracts. In his legal textbook, The Idea of Private Law, Ernest J. Weinrib writes, “The external nature of action implies a world of shared social meanings...in order to appropriate a person will perform the act that signifies appropriation in that person’s society: in one society the act may be the shoe’s stepping, in another the hand’s seizure or the laying on of a spear (Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law, 104).”

The process worked and Ruth and Boaz became a happy legally married couple (Ruth 4:13) because all of the parties involved agreed to the terms of the shoe deal. It was not the shoes, it was the shared social meaning.

If you had to seal a contract by the exchange of one common item, what would it be? How important is it to you that you are or will be legally married? Is the marriage contract a public or private issue?

“Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract, and relationships are work.” - Lori Heyman Gordon (b. 1929), marriage and family therapist

Paul's Scandalous Message

2012-01-31T15:00:00.000-08:00

Complete: “We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews _________________.” A stumbling block (I Corinthians 1:23)

In writing to a divided Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:10-17), Paul reminded the congregation of its bedrock - what, how, and why he preached (I Corinthians 1:18-31). At the center of this self-contained unit, the apostle uses the collective “we” in discussing preaching to remind the Corinthians that they should be unified behind a central message, devoting their time to external rather than internal battles (I Corinthians 1:23). In doing so, Paul also recalls the obstacle they should be tackling when he laments,

but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, (I Corinthians 1:23 NASB)

Speaking of this passage, Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) concludes, “The purpose of the letter is summed up in one verse [I Corinthians 1:23] (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (The Anchor Yale Bible), 53).”

The cross is central not only to I Corinthians but to Christianity as a whole. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) comments, “The cross is the key to understanding reality in God’s new eschatological age. Consequently, to enter the symbolic world of the gospel is to undergo a conversion of the imagination, to see all values transformed by the foolish and weak death of Jesus on the cross (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 31).”

This paradigm shift proved difficult for many of the beloved Jewish members of Paul’s audience. Even so, the apostle refused to water down his message despite the fact that its central theme proved to be a “stumbling block”, skandalon. It is from this Greek word that English derives the word “scandal”. Though most translations retain “stumbling block” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), the term has garnered much consideration. Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) relays:

The word...has been variously rendered as scandal (Barrett, Fee), stumbling block (AV/KJV, NRSV, NIV, Collins, Moffant), or an obstacle they cannot get over (NJB). All of these can be defended. The Greek word occurs only rarely outside of the Septuagint and New Testament, but occurs six times in Matthew and Luke, six times in the Pauline epistles (once each in I Peter, I John and Revelation), i.e. 15 times in the New Testament. Hatch-Redpath list 21 occurrences in the Septuagint, where it translates four Hebrew words... (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 171)

Roy E. Ciampa (b. 1958) and Brian S. Rosner interpret:

Although the word appears only here in I Corinthians, Paul uses it in a similar context in Romans 9:33 and Romans 11:11-12. In both cases an Old Testament citation identifies Christ as a stumbling block for Israel (Isaiah 8:14 and Psalm 69:23-24 respectively). Isaiah 8:14 in particular gives the flavor of the term with various synonyms: “He will become a stone of offense and a stumbling block to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Together these texts suggest that a stumbling block is more serious than simply an insulting affront; it also leads to disastrous consequences. (Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 100)

Paul uses a very strong word to describe how offended many Jews were to his message.

How central is the cross to the Christian message? What aspect of the gospel is most troubling to you? What tenet of Christianity do you feel is most bothersome to non-Christians? Why was the message of the cross met with such turpitude?

The scandal of the cross has been largely lost due to familiarity. Marion L. Soards (b. 1952) reminds that modern readers “have seen the cross so often as a religious symbol that we forget the brutal reality of this practice and often fail to comprehend how scandalous was the early Christian message of God’s saving humanity through the crucifixion of Jesus (Soards, 1 Corinthians (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)).”

To some, the apostles must have appeared to be abusing the Scriptures. Bart D. Ehrman (b. 1955) claims emphatically:

the idea that Jesus was the suffering Messiah was an invention of the early Christians. It is no wonder that the apostle Paul, writing decades after Christians had come up with this idea, indicates that it is the greatest “stumbling block” for Jews (I Corinthians 1:23). Even though this is the very foundation for all Christian belief, to many Jews it was a ridiculous claim. (Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), 236)

For the first century Jew, a crucified messiah was an oxymoron. The concept was utter nonsense. Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) explains, “One may have a Messiah, or one may have a crucifixion; but one may not have both—at least not from the perspective of merely human understanding. Messiah meant power, splendor, triumph; crucifixion meant weakness, humiliation, defeat (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 75).”

A crucified person was by definition a condemned individual found guilty of a crime so heinous as to merit the death penalty. For some, crucifixion corresponded to a passage from the Law which states “he who is hanged is accursed of God” (Deuteronomy 21:23 NASB). As such, some viewed the cross as the ultimate validation that Jesus was not from God but rather cursed by God. There simply was no room in their theology for a crucified messiah.

Paul understood this sentiment as he himself had stumbled over the same block (Galatians 1:13-14, 3:13)

Do we miss part of the Christian message if we fail to see the scandal of the cross? What preconceived notions do you hold about God? What could someone tell you about God that you would immediately reject on principal?

“It is the eye of ignorance that assigns a fixed and unchangeable color to every object; beware of this stumbling block.” - Paul Gauguin (1848-1903)

Ezekiel: Lying Down on the Job

2012-01-30T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who was said to lie on his left side for 390 days? Ezekiel

Ezekiel lived during a dark period in Israel’s history. In the course of his career, the Babylonian invasion escalated from an imminent danger to a present reality. As such, the prophet was the bearer of bad news. After receiving his calling (Ezekiel 2:1-8), Ezekiel repeatedly predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1-7:27).

Ezekiel’s first prophetic statements were not made with words. His first public act was just that, an act. The prophet inscribed a brick with the name “Jerusalem” and simulated divine rejection and the pending siege (Ezekiel 4:1-3). Then, seemingly out of nowhere, God asked Ezekiel to lay on his side for 390 days (Ezekiel 4:4)!

“As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it. For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 4:4-5 NASB)

Ezekiel sprawled on his left side for over a year. The prophet’s next assignment (naturally) was to do the same on his right side...but for only forty days (Ezekiel 4:6). (His tan must have been terribly uneven...)

Out of context, this behavior appears psychotic and as is typical of the book, Ezekiel’s initial reaction is not described. In his psychological study of the prophet, David J. Halperin (b. 1947) writes, “When, without any obvious compulsion, a man is reported to have lain on his left side for 390 days...and on his right side for 40, it is hardly farfetched to suppose that psychic disturbance may have been involved (Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology, 12).”

In context, there is a method to the madness. Ezekiel is creating a visual representation of Israel’s plight that accentuates the burden of bearing God’s weight. Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) explains, “The lying bound on the side is a proleptic enactment of captivity and exile. By performing this act, Ezekiel both prefigures the punishment which is the result of Judah’s infidelity and, at the same time, identifies himself with the suffering of his people brought on by sin (Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 35).”

Bruce Vawter (1921-1986) relays another common explanation. He writes that “this episode represents Ezekiel as playing in part the role of the scapegoat of Leviticus 16:21-22. Symbolically God lays the guilt...of Israel...upon Ezekiel while he rests on his left side for 390 days. After that (or concurrently with that?) he bears the guilt of the house of Judah while lying on his right side for 40 days (Vawter, Ezekiel: A New Heart (International Theological Commentary), 42).”

The ratio is clear, the number of days correlates to the years of national sin. It is like cheerleaders enacting their team’s points by performing the same amount of pushups as their team has scored points, only with an incredibly negative twist. Three hundred ninety corresponded to the years that Israel had sinned against God and the ensuing 40 symbolized the years of iniquity of their sister, Judah (Ezekiel 4:4-8).

While the ratio of days lying to years sinning is clearly stated, interpreters have not conclusively determined which years are being represented. There does not appear to be a dramatic event that occurred 390 years before Ezekiel’s career. It has been proposed that 390 is some sort of rounded number that correlates to the time between the building of the first temple and Jerusalem’s destruction in 586 BCE. (If Ezekiel were picking a round number, why not select 400?)

This hardly represents the only theory. Paul M. Joyce expounds on the “problematic question”:

what could be meant by the punishment of Israel for as long as 390 years. (If the northern exile of 721 were the starting point, taking 390 off 721 gives 331 B.C.E., prompting the intriguing if implausible thought of an allusion to the conquests of Alexander as in some sense signalling the end of the punishment of Israel!) The Greek text offers a rationalization, involving changing 390 to 190, a number that accommodates an interpretation of the punishment of the northern kingdom in the period between the Assyrian conquest and Ezekiel’s day...The number 390 is best understood to refer to the period of national sin from the united monarchy down to Ezekiel’s time (not covering, it must be conceded, Israel’s sin in Egypt, reported in Ezekiel 20:8). The number “forty” refers to the current punishment of the nation, that is, the Babylonian exile. (Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) , 85-86)

Others have found significance in the number itself. Adrianus van den Born (1904-1978) noted that the numeric value (via gematria) of the Hebrew for “days of siege” (Ezekiel 4:8) yields 390 (van den Born, Ezechiël). Others have proposed that the sum of the two tasks is significance (390+40=430) as it corresponds to the length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt (Exodus 12:40).

Regardless of what years are being referenced, the prostrate prophet served as a constant reminder that Jerusalem was falling and that the people had only themselves to blame. Their sins had caught up with them.

Have you ever felt God calling you to do something that without God’s involvement would be deemed psychotic? What is the craziest thing you have felt God leading you to do? Who tended to Ezekiel while he laid upon his side? Why would God make this action Ezekiel’s first prophetic task? What is gained by choosing this method of communication over speaking?

Ezekiel’s extended lying is a quintessential “sign-act” or symbolic act. Sign-acts are a prophet’s embodiment and dramatization of a given message. Ezekiel was hardly the first prophet to perform sign-acts (Isaiah 8:18, 20:3; Jeremiah 13:1-11, 16:1-9, 19:1-13, 27-28, 35:1-19) but he did use them prodigiously (Ezekiel 4:1-3, 4-8, 9-15, 5:1-4, 12:1-7, 24:15-27).

Sign-acts might equate to modern street theater. Like producing a mimed parable, the prophet speaks without words. When David Blaine incased himself in a block of ice in Times Square on November 27, 2000, it was not about a feat of endurance as much as a platform for marketing his brand. While sign-acts have similar benefits they are more than mere publicity stunts as the prophet acts at the request of God.

Walter Eichrodt (1890-1978) philosophizes:

We are inclined to regard actions as mere ornaments to a prophetic discourse, which do no more than illustrate and drive home its meaning. So we feel some surprise to see Ezekiel begin his work with them. But in actual fact a symbolic action on the part of a prophet is more than a mere accompaniment to his discourse. It is an independent means of preaching, which can on occasion take the place of the word, and its presence first makes possible the effective delivery of the message...The basis for that consists in the close connection between word and action in Hebrew thought. The word dābār means not only ‘word’ but also ‘deed’...Seeing that word and deed form a unity, a prophetic action is not just an appendage, but a powerful means of proclamation of God’s will. (Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 81)

What is the closest modern equivalent to the sign-act? What would you think if your pastor did something like Ezekiel? Is there a place for this behavior in modern Christianity?

“Action is eloquence.” - William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Coriolanus (Act 3, Scene II)

Healing at Bethesda

2012-01-27T15:00:00.000-08:00

What pool did people believe to have healing powers? A pool by the Sheep Gate called Bethzatha [Bethesda] (John 5:2)

While on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for an unnamed feast (John 5:1), Jesus encountered an invalid who had been incapacitated for 38 years (John 5:1-5). After confirming that the man wanted to be well, Jesus consented and restored him (John 5:6-9). As the healing was performed on the Sabbath, “the Jews” protested (John 5:10-18). This story, unique to John’s gospel, represents the first vestiges of the hostility motif in John, a theme that will lead to Jesus’ death (John 19:17-37).

The incident occurred at a spring-fed pool with five porches that might be called an asclepion or healing sanctuary (John 5:2).

Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes. (John 5:2 NASB)

It has been speculated that the five colonnades may have been erected by Herod the Great (73 BCE-4 CE). This feature made the site an open structure with roofs which allowed its sick proprietors to lie down while being provided partial protection from the elements.

The location is referenced only here in Scripture and there is debate regarding both the name of the pool and its etymology as the text states that the word is Hebrew (John 5:2) but uses Aramaic to define it. In various manuscripts, the site is called Bethesda (“house of mercy”), Bethzatha (“house of olive oil”) and Bethsaida (“house of fishermen”). While most translations opt for “Bethesda” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT) some use “Bethzatha” (CEV, NRSV, RSV). Leon Morris (1914-2006) analyzes:

“In Hebrew” is usually understood to mean, “in the language spoken by the Jews,” that is “in Aramaic”... This is probably the way to understand it, but the matter is not simple. “Bethsaida,” “Bethzatha,” and “Besthesda” are all well attested, and “Belzetha” is also found. The textual problem is a complicated one, and none of these variants can be ruled out as impossible. However, the copper scroll found at Qumran reads “Beth Eshdatain,” which makes “Bethesda” almost certainly correct. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 266-67)

This correlation with the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the reason most translators prefer Bethesda. All of the options are very Semitic and regardless of which one is chosen, the theological meaning of the text and the sign that Jesus performed remain the same.

The site and its five porticoes were long thought to be unhistorical but as Craig L Blomberg (b. 1955) pronounces, “John 5:2 was dramatically corroborated by archaeological discoveries in the 1890s (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 109).”

After Napoleon III (1808-1873) acquired the rights to the site for France, a twin pool north of the Temple area was discovered at St. Anne’s Church in 1856. When repairs were made to the church in 1888, a large reservoir was found and Conrad Schick (1822-1901) was consulted. Schick organized an expedition, dug to the Roman level just after the time of Christ and uncovered two large pools with five porches. Colin G. Kruse describes the site:

It was a double pool...Each pool was trapezoidal in shape, and the overall length of the two pools (north to south) was about 318 feet. The smaller pool to the north was about 197 feet wide on its northern side and the larger southern pool was about 250 feet wide on its southern side. The five colonnades were located one on each of the four sides of the double pool and one across the centre dividing the two pools. (Kruse, John (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 146)

In short, the archaeological discoveries and the Bible are in agreement.

Bethesda was not entirely unique. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) writes, “Such places were not uncommon in antiquity, and once a site was identified as a sanctuary of healing, the tradition was impossible to stop (Burge, John: The NIV Application Commentary).”

There is no record of how Bethesda acquired its reputation. John does document a legend associated with the pool:

[for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.] (John 5:4 NASB)

Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) is representative of most commentators when he writes, “Verses 3b-4, concerning an angel stirring the water, are missing from the best manuscripts and reflect popular tradition (Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary, 40).

Did Bethesda have healing attributes? Why did the invalids meet there? Was it solely due to the possibility of healing? Did religious officials endorse this site?

Bethesda is replete with superstition. This is evidenced by the fact that after the second Judean revolt in 135 CE, emperor Hadrian (76-135) co-opted it into a healing sanctuary dedicated to the god Serapis. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) speculates that “official Judaism almost certainly did not approve of the superstition associated with the alleged healing powers of the pool of Bethesda. After all, healing shrines were characteristic of pagan cults. Apparently, however, the authorities looked the other way, tolerating this expression of popular religion.” (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 179).

The unnamed invalid did receive healing at Bethesda, not from any supernatural water but from Jesus. And he encountered Jesus because Jesus chose to enter the city via the gate where the sick congregated. Jesus did not wait for the sick to come to him or his church. He went to them.

Why did Jesus choose an entry point that led him through Bethesda? Do you go where help is most needed?

“Healing is a matter of time, but it is sometimes also a matter of opportunity.” - Hippocrates (460-370 BCE), often referred to as the “father of Western medicine”

Tangling with Ms. Wrong

2012-01-24T15:00:00.000-08:00

In what is the wicked trapped or ensnared according to Proverbs 5:22? His sins and iniquities

The importance of the marriage covenant is a recurring theme in Proverbs. The book’s fifth chapter is a poem that speaks against adultery. This passage marks the first of three sets of instructions from a father to a son regarding proper sexual relationships (Proverbs 5:1-23, 6:20-35, 7:1-27). Perhaps because adultery is a selfish act, the sage does not discuss infidelity’s affects upon a wife or child but instead focuses on the negative consequences to the adulterer himself. After discussing the merits of the right and wrong woman at length (Proverbs 5:1-20), the sage moves to the larger picture of sin in general (Proverbs 5:21-23). He affirms that sin comes with consequences (Proverbs 5:22).

His own iniquities will capture the wicked,
And he will be held with the cords of his sin. (Proverbs 5:22 NASB)

Tremper Longman III interprets:

the father has saved his most powerful argument for last. Thus far he has warned concerning quite human dangers...But the ultimate motivation for not entering into an illicit relationship is because...God is watching, and so the punishments of Proverbs 5:22-23 (ultimately death) are not a matter of chance, but certainty; the implication is that no matter what particular form the punishment might take, God will assure that it will happen. The sin of the adulterers will come back and harm them (Proverbs 5:22). (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 162-63)

The sage personifies sin by painting a picture of a weaver getting caught in his own web. While the Seductress may seem to entrap the man, the real predator is Sin. To commit a sin is to eventually be caught in one’s own trap. Leonard S. Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) explain, “The writer presents a more prudential approach. Whether or not the sinner is aware of it, the consequences of sin remain with the sinner. Just as a trap catches and holds the unwary animal, so sin will catch and hold the sinner (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 54).”

Ironically, the sinner thinks that he is exercising freedom while in reality the transgressor is actually ensnaring himself. In referencing this verse, Joshua Harris (b. 1974) writes, “We can either be captives of righteousness or captives of sin...The man and woman who embraced the immediate pleasure of sex outside of marriage may think that they are experiencing freedom, but the opposite is true—the tentacles of sin are reaching up, binding them, and dragging them toward death (Harris, Boy Meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship, 145).”

Leo G. Perdue (b. 1946) explains:

a saying forming a couplet brings the instruction to its culmination (Proverbs 5:22-23). The proverb affirms, first of all, that a wicked person is requited by means of the very iniquity that she or he causes (Proverbs 5:22), and second, that those who practice evil die because they lack instruction and are entrapped by folly (Proverbs 5:23).” (Perdue, Proverbs (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 122)

As Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) wrote in his poem “Tomlinson”, “For the sin ye do by two and two ye must pay for one by one!”

How important is the stability of the marriage covenant to a society’s success? Has its significance decreased since Proverbs was written? Are there always earthly consequences to sin?

The sage’s explanation for the consequences of sin is two-fold. Richard J. Clifford (b. 1937) explains that Proverbs 5:10-21 states “that clandestine affairs cannot be hidden from God, who will take action. Retribution is expressed in the poem in two ways: through the direct action of God (Proverbs 5:21), and through the inherent self-correcting action of the universe (Proverbs 5:22). The Bible often affirms both agencies without attempting to bring them into theoretical unity. (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 72)

Daniel J. Treier (b. 1972) conjectures that God designed the universe in such a way that there would be natural consequences for sin:

As Proverbs 5:21-23 makes clear, this teaching is not safely cordoned off as ethical—it is theological too. Wisdom and righteousness, wickedness and folly, strongly correlate and overlap. In God’s providence the usual form of punishment for infidelity can transpire by natural means during this earthly life...Yet these means are not solely natural...God...superintends the historical course of the cosmos so as to promote the integrity of covenant relationships, whereby we manifest the faithful character of our Creator. (Treier, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 36)

Are actions designated as sin because certain deeds were arbitrarily selected or are sinful acts appropriated as such because God set boundaries around behavior that has negative ramifications for humanity? Which treatise better fits a world shaped by a loving God?

“All human sin seems so much worse in its consequences than in its intentions.” - Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)

Luke: Beloved Physician

2012-01-23T15:00:00.000-08:00

Which early disciple was a doctor? Luke

Colossians is one of five letters that Paul wrote while imprisoned. Like most of the apostle’s correspondence, the epistle concludes with a series of personal greetings (Colossians 4:7-18). Colossians features three clusters of salutations. These acknowledgments were the ancient version of the “shout out”.

The last two associates that Paul mentions are two Gentiles, Luke and Demas (Colossians 4:14). This same duo is grouped again in Philemon (Philemon 1:24). While Demas receives no description, Luke is given the epithet “beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14 NASB).

Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and also Demas. (Colossians 4:14 NASB)

Given his familiarity to the church at Colossae, Eric Porterfield (b. 1967) wonders how much influence Luke had on the Colossians. He writes, “It is likely that ‘the Colossians have heard Luke-shaped stories of Jesus’ (Walsh/Keesmaat, 71) and that the word of Christ they were to let dwell in them (Colossians 3:16) comes from what eventually became Luke’s Gospel (Porterfield, Sessions with Colossians & Philemon: On the Move with God , 92).”

Though the word for physician, iatros, is used seven times (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17, 5:26; Luke 4:23, 5:31, 8:43; Colossians 4:14), Luke is the only doctor named in the New Testament. Iatros is translated as both “physician” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) and “doctor” (CEV, NIV, NLT).

This label is the only biographical detail the New Testament provides regarding Luke. The name “Luke” actually only appears three times in Scripture and always in conjunction with Pauline greetings (Colossians 4:14; II Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24). Luke stays with Paul through thick and thin and he alone is said to be with the apostle at the time of his last correspondence (II Timothy 4:11).

Though Luke is traditionally accepted as the author of Luke-Acts, the Bible itself does not explicitly state this. In commenting on Colossians 4:14, N.T. Wright (b. 1948) reminds, “It is only in this passage that we learn of Luke’s profession, and only by inference, and later tradition that we know him as the author of the great two-volume work which comprises the Gospel named after him and the Acts of the Apostles (Wright, Colossians and Philemon (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 158).”

Why does Paul include the unnecessary epithet in describing Luke? What do you associate with doctors? Do you the words “doctor” and “physician” have different connotations? How important is a person’s profession to your assessment of her? What did Luke’s profession say of him?

Marianne Meye Thompson (b. 1954) reminds, “Ancient medicine differed vastly form its modern counterpart. Physicians could treat wounds and employed various remedies to try to treat symptoms of diseases, but they could not halt or cure those diseases. In any case, the study of medicine was not nearly so formalized as today, although Luke’s status will indicate that he was an educated man (Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary) , 106).”

Jerry L. Sumney (b. 1955) relays, “The occupation either locates Luke among persons of some wealth or indicates that he was a slave who had been educated to be someone’s personal physician (Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 276).” In his study of Christian doctors, Dan Graves (b. 1950) speculates that it was the latter. Graves writes, “Luke probably was born the son of slaves. Tradition says so, and his single, short name supports the tradition (Graves, Doctors Who Followed Christ: 32 Biographies of Historic Physicians and Their Christian Faith, 20).”

In describing the ancient “physician”, James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) writes:

That indicates a man of some learning and training (though at this time medicine was just becoming a subject of systematic instruction...) And since the title has a favorable ring here (contrast the typical criticism of doctors elsewhere in biblical tradition: II Chronicles 16:12; Job 13:4; Jeremiah 46:11; Mark 5:26) we may assume that he was no charlatan but respected for genuine medical knowledge and healing skills. Beyond that we know nothing firm about Luke. (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 283)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) notes, “At one time it was argued that the vocabulary of Luke–Acts showed the author to have been a physician. The lexical evidence adduced lacks demonstrative force, but it retains considerable illustrative value (Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 181-82).”

We know for certain only that Luke was Paul’s doctor friend. Some have even speculated that Luke was Paul’s personal physician, and given his numerous trials (II Corinthians 11:23-29), the apostle likely needed one. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) documents that there were allowances for prisoners with medical needs:

Prisoners often had friends to assist them during their confinement. For example, John the Baptist’s disciples tended to him in prison (Matthew 11:2). Pliny notes that a person of respectable position was allowed a few slaves to wait on him when he was in prison (Ep. 3.16). Philostratus reports that Damis went to prison with the philosopher (Vit. Apoll. 7.15). Paul was supposedly granted the privilege of being attended by his friends (Acts 24:23). Ignatius says Polycarp visited him in Smyrna (Trall. 1.2) and the Ephesian deacon Burrhus was sent to him (Eph. 2.1). The Ignatian correspondence shows how letters could be sent from imprisonment with the assistance of helpers. (Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 241)

Do you have any beloved friends in the medical fields? Do you appreciate how blessed you are to live at a time when medicine is so advanced? When you are ill, who do you most want to tend to your needs?

“The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.” - William Osler (1849-1919), one of the “Big Four” founding professors at Johns Hopkins Hospital

Jacob: Burial and Growth

2012-01-20T15:00:00.000-08:00

Where did Jacob bury his household gods [idols]? At Shechem (Genesis 35:4)

In what many see as the climax to Jacob’s life story, God instructed the patriarch to move to Bethel and erect an altar (Genesis 35:1). Before embarking on this new stage of his life, Jacob took care of some unfinished business. He ordered his entire household to “put away” any “foreign gods” they might have accrued, to purify themselves and to change clothes (Genesis 35:2 NASB). Of the three directives, the first was the most important as evidenced by the fact that it alone is explicitly said to have been followed (Genesis 35:4).

So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had and the rings which were in their ears, and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem. (Genesis 35:4 NASB)

This incident marks the first of four burials in Genesis 35, a chapter of prominent transitions (Genesis 35:4, 8, 19, 29).

The buried items are most commonly rendered “foreign gods” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) but are also translated “alien gods” (MSG), “idols” (CEV), “pagan idols” (NLT), and “strange gods” (KJV). Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) speculates that they were pagan icons based upon the verb Jacob uses - “‘Get rid of’ (sûr) elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. II Kings 18:4; I Chronicles 30:14) describes moving cult objects (Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 11:27-50:26, 617).”

There has been debate as to how Jacob’s household came into possession of these artifacts. It has been suggested that Jacob’s family acquired some of them in their pillage of Shechem in the preceding chapter (Genesis 34:27-29). The patriarch’s edict would also include the “household gods” (teraphim) that his wife Rachel had stolen from her father (Genesis 31:19, 32).

Some have questioned why Jacob buries these idols instead of destroying them. Jacob does not grind them to powder as Moses later did to the idolatrous golden calf (Exodus 32:20). Is Jacob hedging his bets, taking measures to reacquire these gods if need be? Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) writes:

What is the significance of burying gods? Is it a black magic ritual of interment of guardian figures? Is it a preparatory rite in holy war to activate the “terror of God” against the enemy, and thus not a real burial, but a laying aside of religious figurines? Or is it a forsaking of the father gods?..The best parallel to Jacob’s actions seems to be that of Joshua, who (also at Shechem) commanded the elders “to put away the gods...that your fathers served” (Joshua 24:14). The presence of such “other gods” will be a barrier preventing legitimate service of Yahweh. The language of Jacob also matches that of Samuel, who calls Israel to the ancient covenant ritual of renouncing foreign gods. (Hamilton, Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 375).

Shechem is the place where idols are tossed aside and though our “foreign gods” are likely not in statuette form, we still create them today.

What idols do you house? What do you need to bury to better serve God? What unfinished business do you need to complete? Have you ever had a Shechem moment where you rededicated your life to God? Why did Jacob not simply destroy the idols?

Jacob realized that he could not serve God fully while in possession of idols. Jacob’s situation is a microcosm of his descendants’ spiritual predicament. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) explains:

Israel cannot either leave the land or kill all the Canaanites. Israel must find a way to stay in the land with the Canaanites and yet practice faithfulness. The way chosen to do this without either destructiveness or accommodation is by way of radical symbolization. Israel engages in dramatic ritual activity as a mode of faithfulness. It is apparent that this ritual (later used at Shechem, cf. Joshua 24:23) permits Israel to be Israel in the land. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 283)

Jacob’s act of religious exclusivism would become a precursor to the second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8). James McKeown compares, “Another traditional feature of Israelite faith already observed in patriarchal worship is the absence of images of Yahweh. Images of gods other than Yahweh are mentioned, and they seem to have been greatly valued (McKeown, Genesis (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), 358).”

Shmuel Klitsner adds, “Though later in the Bible, idol worship warrants the death penalty, in pre-Sinai narratives this is not the case, as explicit in Genesis 35:2-4, where Jacob himself instructs his household members to rid themselves of ‘foreign gods.’ There, the only consequence is the need for the offenders to purify themselves and change their clothing (Wrestling Jacob: Deception, Identity, and Freudian Slips in Genesis, 115).”

Significantly, this religious precedent was set at Jacob’s own initiative as the mandate to remove the idols was not part of God’s instructions (Genesis 35:1). Jacob instinctively senses that possessing foreign gods is not conducive to the new life that he was preparing to live for God. With this pronouncement, Jacob finally makes a commitment to God alone. This represents dramatic spiritual maturation. John H. Walton (b. 1952) concludes that “God’s patient work in his life has resulted in a transformation of character that may have seemed beyond reach in the earlier chapters (Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), 636).”

Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) explains, “Jacob understands immediately that he has been called not just to physical relocation but to spiritual repurification. He leaves off thinking about matters of international trade, safety, and justice, and focuses on his orientation to the divine. He sees for the first time that the central question is the question of false or foreign gods (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, 501).”

What steps have you made in your spiritual progress? Is it ever too late for a new spiritual beginning? How do you know if you are growing?

“Growth is the only evidence of life.” - John Henry Newman (1801-1890)

Revelation and Recession

2012-01-18T15:00:00.000-08:00

How often does the fruit ripen in heaven? Once a month (Revelation 22:2)

A description of the New Jerusalem is one of the Bible’s final topics (Revelation 21:10-22:5). In detailing the end, John reverts back to the beginning as he incorporates old imagery from Eden (Genesis 2:8-17) in his presentation of the New Jerusalem. Among the interesting details that John records is the presence of trees that yield fruit on a monthly basis (Revelation 22:2).

Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Revelation 22:2 NASB)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) summarizes, “This river apparently goes down the middle of the golden street, and on either side of its banks are trees of life (or is there only one tree?), which bear twelve different kinds of fruit year-round, some each month (Witherington, 272).”

In the New Jerusalem, crops will not experience seasonal interruption. This pronouncement is not original to John as Ezekiel shared a similar revelation (Ezekiel 47:12).

“By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.” (Ezekiel 47:12 NASB)

Though obviously quite similar, John’s account is actually more encouraging than his prophetic predecessor’s. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) writes, “This goes beyond Ezekiel 47:12, where the fruit trees bear fruit every month but not twelve different kinds of fruit...The mention of ‘twelve kinds’ certainly alludes to a twelve-month calendar and especially to the seasons for growing crops. Normally, fruit appears at its proper season, but in the final Eden there will be no seasons, and abundant fruit will be available every month, an incredible promise for those of us who live for seasonal fruit crops (Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 772).”

Many commentators interpret these images metaphorically noting that perpetual produce is merely symbolic of the abundance that characterizes the holy city. Leon Morris (1914-2006) deciphers, “As there is neither sun nor moon [Revelation 21:23] there is of course no ‘month’. But John’s expression is perfectly intelligible. He is using the imagery to bring out his point that there is an abundant supply (Morris, Revelation (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 249).”

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) expounds:

There are no seasons of scarcity in the new Eden, only seasons of plenty, for the tree produces twelve kinds of fruit, presumably one for each month of the year. It is a perpetual source of nourishment that sustains the inhabitants of the city forever, and the leaves of this tree are meant “for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2; cf. Ezekiel 47:12). Similar to the crystal clear water, which is an inexhaustible source of life, the healing leaves provide physical and spiritual wholeness. (Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, 257-8)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) summarizes succinctly, “One crop per month from each tree produces a never-ending and therefore sufficiently large and eternal supply of life (Gundry, Commentary on Revelation).”

What is your favorite seasonal fruit? Do any contemporary fruits ripen as often as those in the New Jerusalem? What would the ramifications of having monthly crops be?

One of the benefits that comes with the assurance of continuous crops is stability. This constancy extends to many realms of life as the stoppage of seasonal cycles corresponds to the end of a cyclical economy. The New Jerusalem is devoid of droughts and the uncertainty that plagues the old age. The continuous food supply assures that the New Jerusalem will also be without economic downturns.

This is no small comfort in the present economy. The United States’ relatively short history has been spattered with countless recessions, depressions and panics to varying degrees of significance: 1797, 1807, 1815-1821, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1920-21, The Great Depression, 1948-49, 1953-54, 1957-58, 1960-61, 1969-1970, 1973-75, early 1980's, 2001-2003, current recession. Among the many hopes that the New Jerusalem provides is a recession proof existence. Revelation was above all meant to provide hope for its readers and this segment of Revelation is worthy of a reminder at a time when so many are experiencing economic hardship.

Compare and contrast Eden (Genesis 2:8-17) and the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:10-22:5). How has the current recession affected your life? Can you even imagine a recession proof existence? Who is more affected by a recession, the rich or the poor?

“It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.” - Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)

Amos: Calling them Cows

2012-01-16T15:00:00.000-08:00

What prophet called the women of Samaria “cows” or “kine”? Amos (Amos 4:1)

Amos prophesied to the northern kingdom of Israel (Amos 1:1). In imploring his audience to listen, Amos famously used the politically incorrect designation “cows” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or the more antiquated “kine” (ASV, KJV) (Hebrew: parah) to describe the pampered citizens of Israel (Amos 4:1).

“Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria,
Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy,
Who say to your husbands, “Bring now, that we may drink!” (Amos 4:1 NASB)

Charles L. Aaron, Jr. (b. 1956) admits that Amos 4:1-5 contains “two oracles that employ a rhetorical strategy that contemporary Christian preachers would likely reject. Both oracles use mockery and insult to make their point (Aaron, Preaching Hosea, Amos, and Micah (Preaching Classic Texts), 58).”

The expression is not arbitrary nor are the cows that the prophet describes. Amos does not merely call his listeners kine but “cows of Bashan”. This designation represented the prize cattle of the day. Comparing the moniker to the terms of endearment used in the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 1:9, 2:9, 4:5, 7:3), James Luther Mays (b. 1921) does not see the term as demeaning:

The epithet was not in itself an insult. Bashan in Transjordan was noted for rich forests and pastures, and particularly for fine cattle (Deuteronomy 32:14; Psalm 22:12; Ezekiel 39:18); Bashan was a hallmark of quality. Nor in the idiom of ancient eastern flattery would women be offended at being called ‘cows’; one has only to remember the terms used for compliments in the Song of Songs. The Bashan-cows are the women of quality in Samaria, the pampered darlings of society in Israel’s royalist culture.” (Mays,Amos : A Commentary (Old Testament Library),72)

Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) counters, “While it is true that ancient terms of flattery sometimes seem strange in our ears (many mention the endearments of the Song of Songs in connection with this passage), it is evident that Amos’s purpose here in not flattery but sarcastic indictment. Amos intends to be rude. The high-born, well-bred women of Samaria with their luxurious and decadent lifestyles are addressed as fattened and pampered beasts (Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (Westminster Bible Companion), 201).”

Many interpreters read Amos as categorizing women with a term that is degrading to the modern ear. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) defends, “Interpreters mostly understand Amos to be singling out the wealthy women in Samaria, but the female element may also be figurative, making it the wealthy of Israel who were trampling the poor and, therefore, included in the condemnation. According to this interpretation, the subsequent reference to ‘husbands’ would be part of the image (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah - An Exegetical Commentary, 176).” As such, “cows of Bashan” refers at least to women but may not limit itself only to women.

In The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, Carol Ann Newsom (b. 1950) and Sharon H. Ringe explain:

Two aspects of these verses may sound more misogynistic to modern readers than they were originally intended. Amos may well have meant to deliver a stinging denunciation of what he understood to be the women’s attitudes and behavior toward the poor, but yet without any intent gratuitously to insult their bodies or their relationships with their husbands, as commentators often assume. “You cows of Bashan” was almost certainly not meant as derogatorily as it sounds in English, though the precise nuance in Amos’s mind is not clear. (Newsom and Ringe, 221)

“Cows of Bashan” should be interpreted proverbially, not as a sexist barb. Amos uses the expression because the shoe fits. Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) expounds, “‘Cows of Bashan’ is a fitting symbol for these wealthy women...These pampered self-indulgent, and bossy ladies maintain their lifestyle by exploiting the poor, crushing the needy, and speaking demandingly to those around them (Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah).”

Amos called them like he saw them and he saw cows of Bashan. That being written, I would advise not calling modern women “cows”.

Do you think being dubbed Bashan cows was offensive to the original audience? What region today is known for its quality cattle? What politically correct analogy would you have used in lieu of “cows”? Should preachers always be politically correct?

The potentially insulting epithet the prophet invokes should not distract from the real issue - what the metaphor represents. It is significant that the proclamation is written to Israel’s lush northern kingdom (Amos 1:1). Contrary to many misconceptions of the area, the region east of the Sea of Galilee is choice. Jörg Jeremias (b. 1939) points out, “The high plateau of Bashan (500-600 meters elevation) east of the Sea of Galilee (modern en-Nuqreh in Syria, though it probably includes the Golan Heights) is an extremely fertile pastureland because of its basalt soil and plentiful rainfall and was famous for its ‘fatlings’ (Ezekiel 39:18; Deuteronomy 32:14) and its mighty bulls (Psalm 22:12) (Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 63).”

This fertile region was enjoying great prosperity under Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1, 7:9, 10, 11). It was the best of times. But not for everyone. Not only did the worldly blessings not trickle down to the poorest members of society, but the rich trampled on the poor to attain their wealth (Amos 4:1). Amos is not necessarily preaching against being rich but rather the selfish means by which Israel’s wealthy acquired their abundance. As Jesus asked, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul (Matthew 16:26 NASB; cf. Mark 8:36)?”

Mays clarifies, “The luxury and debauchery of urban affluence in Israel was a scandalous offense to the God for whom Amos spoke (Amos 6:4-7; 3:10, 15). The offense lay not just in its stark contrast to the condition of the poor, but in the fact that the affluence was built on the suffering of the needy (Mays, 71).”

Who today lives high on the hog at the expense of those less fortunate? Is this sin perceived as grievous in the United States as it should be?

“The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure.” - B.C. Forbes (1880-1954), founder of Forbes Magazine

The Writing on the Wall

2012-01-12T15:00:00.000-08:00

What message did Belshazzar see on the wall and ask Daniel to interpret? Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin (Daniel 5:25)

In his first appearance in the Bible, the Babylonian king Belshazzar hosted a drunken feast (Daniel 5:1). The ruler beckoned goblets looted from the Jerusalem temple and toasted his gods (Daniel 5:2-4). The revelry soon took a turn for the macabre when a disembodied hand crashed the party (Daniel 5:5). The hand inscribed a short, esoteric message on the king’s wall (Daniel 5:5, 25).

“Now this is the inscription that was written out: ‘MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.’” (Daniel 5:25 NASB)

Most translations leave the divine graffiti untranslated to maintain the original audience’s confusion. While the first three words are the same in all translations, the last term typically either follows the Masoretic text (upharsin, ASV, CEV, KJV, NASB, NKJV) or renders the term parsin (ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or peres (MSG). They are actually synonymous as in Hebrew the conjunction “and” is added to nouns as a prefix so upharsin simply means “and parsin”.

After Belshazzar’s men failed to decode the inscription (Daniel 5:7-12), the increasingly agitated king summoned the prophet Daniel to interpret the message (Daniel 5:13). Daniel gave it to Belshazzar straight, informing the monarch that the words were as ominous as the gesture that wrote them (Daniel 5:18-28). The prophet delineated the cryptic words:

“This is the interpretation of the message: ‘MENE’—God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. ‘TEKEL’—you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. ‘PERES’—your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:26-28 NASB)

Norman W. Porteous (1898-2003) summarizes, “The mysterious hand had written not so much in warning as in judgment.” (Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 81). For Belshazzar, the party was over.

There has been much discussion regarding the meaning of the words written on the wall. Apart from Daniel’s elucidation, the terms themselves are merely words strung together in such a way that some have even posed that apart from the prophet’s reading they are gibberish. The most common theory is that the nomenclature corresponds to coins. W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) explains:

since the late nineteenth century, a great number of scholars have accepted the theory that the three words are weights of coinage: MENE signifying a mena, TEKEL simply an Aramaic spelling of shekel, and PERES a reference to half a mena. Even though such a series is peculiar in the sense that the ratio between the three coins is something like sixty to one and thirty (the middle term, shekel, being the least valuable of the three or four coins), a great many scholars nonetheless have agreed that the riddle is based upon such a series and that Belshazzar is presented a mysterious inscription which in modern terms might read, “(A half dollar), a half dollar, a penny, and two bits.” (Two bits would be more appropriate than “a quarter” since the word parsin is apparently a duel form of the word peres, “half.”) (Towner, Daniel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 75)

David Instone-Brewer has speculated that the hand wrote in cuneiform numerals and that Daniel translated them into Aramaic (“Mene Mene Teqel Uparsin: Daniel 5.25 in Cuneiform”, Tyndale Bulletin 1991 42.2 pp. 310-316). Even if the words were recognizable, the onlookers did not hold the key to decipher their meaning and their significance was lost on the observers (Daniel 5:7-9).

Why would God accompany such a dramatic straightforward gesture like a disembodied hand with an equally esoteric message? Why does God not act so demonstratively in the modern world? Does Daniel have any sympathy for the recipient of his oracle? Why is mene written twice when tekel and parsin are transcribed only once?

The stunned king was given a death sentence and God’s word was final. Stephen R. Miller (b. 1949) comments, “‘Mene’ was written twice to stress that the divine decision was certain of fulfillment. So the message literally reads ‘Numbered, numbered, weighted, and divided (Miller, The New American Commentary, Vol. 18: Daniel, 165).”

Zdravko Stefanovic (b. 1957) adds, “Although Daniel has read the words as nouns, in his interpretation he treats them as verbs—given here [Daniel 5:26] in the perfect tense. The use of the prophetic perfect suggests finality (Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 195).”

The prophecy against the doomed king was quickly realized. That very night Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Mede assumed the throne (Daniel 5:30-31).

The idiom “the writing is on the wall” as a portent of doom entered the English lexicon from this passage (Daniel 5:1-31). It was seen as early as 1720 when Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) utilized it in his poem “The Run Upon The Bankers”.

When have you seen the handwriting on the wall? How did you respond?

“Man is a strange animal. He generally cannot read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it.” - Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

Set Apart To Being Together

2012-01-10T15:00:00.000-08:00

Which prophet said, “Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heals us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up”? Hosea (Hosea 6:1)

Hosea prophesied about Israel’s unfaithfulness towards their faithful God. Though this theme is consistent throughout, during the course of the book the scene shifts at the outbreak of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (Hosea 5:8-7:16). This conflict resulted in the northern kingdom of Israel falling to the juggernaut Assyrian army. James Luther Mays (b. 1921) pinpoints, “The references to contemporary events in Hosea 5:8-6:6 fit the situation in Israel during the time after the Assyrian attack had begun, just before and after 733. The sayings are addressed to both the northern and southern kingdoms, with the former called Ephraim throughout. (Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 87).”

Amidst the wartime material, Hosea includes a famous song of penitence (Hosea 6:1-3) which reflects the belief in God’s ability to resurrect the nation’s life. The song begins:

“Come, let us return to the LORD.
For He has torn us, but He will heal us;
He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.” (Hosea 6:1 NASB)

Hosea 6:1-3 is closely connected to the preceding chapter (Hosea 5:11-15) as the song alludes to festering wounds (Hosea 5:13) and “torn us” continues the analogy of God acting the lion (Hosea 5:14-15). James Limburg (b. 1935) explains that these verses (Hosea 6:1-3):

contain a song of penitence, picking up the medical imagery of Hosea 5:13 and expressing exactly what was called for in Hosea 5:15. Rather than going to “Dr. Assyria” for help...the people of Israel are urged to seek help from the true Physician, the Lord. If they repent, their fortunes will be reversed, just as surely as the dawn comes each morning and the showers come each springtime! (Limburg, Hosea-Micah (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 27)

In addressing their predicament, the prophet asserts that the biggest national crisis is not the imposing Assyrian army but the peoples’ relationship with God. As such, the song urges Israel to seek assistance from God instead of military alliances. James Merrill Ward (b. 1928) speculates that “the expectation...that the healing will take place on the third day [Hosea 6:2] implies that the occasion is a pilgrimage festival at the central sanctuary (Ward, Hosea: A Theological Commentary, 118).”

The primary problem with the song (Hosea 6:1-3) is not its theology but its sincerity (Hosea 7:14). In his acclaimed novel, Blood Done Sign My Name: A True Story, Timothy B. Tyson (b. 1959) writes, “If there is to be reconciliation, first there must be truth (Tyson, 10).” The biggest issue regarding Israel’s song of penitence is whether the prayer conveys truth. J. Andrew Dearman (b. 1951) explains:

The question is whether Hosea 6:1-3 is the speech of the people that the Lord longs to hear while waiting in his place (Hosea 5:15), and is thus composed by Hosea to represent true repentance (if only Israel would embrace it!); or whether Hosea 6:1-3 is something that Israel is proposing but in an inadequate way. A decision between the options is difficult. With regard to the witness of the book, the result is crystal clear: whether repentance is inadequately expressed or offered as advice to Israel, the people failed the loyalty test. (Dearman, The Book of Hosea (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 191).

Based upon God’s rejection (Hosea 6:4-7), most conclude that Israel’s song of penitence was not wholly sincere. Ehud Ben Zvi (b. 1951) wrestles, “On the one hand, Hosea 6:1-3 represents what postmonarchic Israel should think and do. As an interlude, it provides an important teaching to the community. Nothing in the text per se suggests that Israel is insincere in Hosea 6:1-3. Yet within the literary context Hosea 6:1-3, in a seemingly unexpected manner, leads to YHWH’s negative response in Hosea 6:4-7 (Ben Zvi, Hosea (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 144).”

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) adds, “Hosea 6:1-3 sounds rather more like genuine repentance that is urged but not followed, than like the empty words of insincere hypocrites. Whatever the interpretation, clearly God is not impressed with mere words and religious observance (Carson, For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God's Word, 31).”

Some have seen subtle clues behind the song’s beautiful words that betray its true motives. The Israelites’ concern is healing, not cleansing; happiness, not holiness; an improved circumstance, not a matured character. James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) inspects: “The essential elements of a true confession are missing in Hosea 6:1-3. First, there is no reference to sin. There is an acknowledgment of the consequences of Israel’s sin...A second missing element is a personal relationship with God. This is seen in the mechanical way the people conceive of God’s restoring them (Boice, Come to the Waters: Daily Bible Devotions for Spiritual Refreshment, 147).”

Who is speaking in this passage? Does Hosea 6:1-3 represent true repentance? What clues reveal the speakers’ earnestness? Do national events still reflect spiritual realities?

While the motives behind Israel’s song of repentance are questioned, the passage’s theology is not. The prophet offers a message of hope - the relationship between Israel and God is still salvageable. Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) clarifies, “This hope is based on his [God’s] earlier promises to restore those who turn from their evils ways and repent (Hosea 2:16-23, 3:4-5; cf. Deuteronomy 4:25-31, 32:39) (Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah).”

The passage hints that if God tore the Israelites, it was so that they could be mended. Some bones must be broken before they can properly heal. The Israelites could become strong in the broken places. The possibility existed that they were set apart to be together.

Caleb Oluremi Oladipo (b. 1955) writes of Christianity’s role in the improbable racial reconciliation in South Africa:

In South Africa...the Church was in captivity under apartheid, and the unjust social structures were reinforced and legitimated under the banner of Christianity...At the same time, the constructive roles of mission in Africa cannot be ignored...What is clear is that the Christian faith has renewed its destiny in South Africa, providing an opportunity for a society fractured by the racist ideology of apartheid to come together. (Oladipo, The Will to Arise, ix).

The same religious text that had been wrongly used to divide a nation was also properly used to reunite it.

If God could reunite South Africa, is any relationship unsalvageable? What is the most improbable reconciliation you have witnessed or heard of? Was Israel torn so that it could be better mended? Is a person’s relationship with God ever unsalvageable?

“I would hope that understanding and reconciliation are not limited to the 19th hole alone.” - Gerald R. Ford (1913-2006)

Citizen Paul: Trusting The System

2012-01-09T15:00:00.000-08:00

What was the chief captain’s name who rescued Paul from the mob in Jerusalem? Lysias (Acts 24:7)

When Paul’s nephew learned of an assassination plot on his uncle’s life, he immediately alerted the imprisoned apostle (Acts 23:12-16). In turn, Paul sent the lad to Lysias, the commander responsible for him (Acts 23:17-19, 26). Lysias acted swiftly and went to great lengths to ensure his prisoner’s safety (Acts 23:22-35). At Paul’s trial the prosecutor, Tertullus, lamented:

But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him [Paul] out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you. By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him.” (Acts 24:7-8 NASB)

Lysias ensured that Paul received due process of law.

While Lysias was certainly largely responsible for Paul’s safe arrival to his trial, Tertullus’ implicating of Lysias does not appear in all of the early manuscripts. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) explains, “The so-called Western text of Acts adds the following after ‘and we seized him’ (Acts 23:6): ‘and we would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come before you.’ It is not readily explainable why later copyists would have struck these words had they been a part of the original text of Acts (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 445).”

Outside of his intervening on Paul’s behalf, Lysias is unknown in the Bible. The text does inform that he was also referred to as Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26). I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) speculates:

Claudius will be the Roman name which he adopted when he became a citizen, and was probably chosen because it was the reigning emperor’s name. Lysias will then be his original Greek name, which became his cognomen on his assumption of Roman citizenship; it may indicate that he came from the Greek-speaking coastal area of Samaria. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 371)

Lysias was a man of authority, a chilarchos, a position translations variously interpret as “commander” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT), “tribune” (ESV, NRSV, RSV), “chief captain” (ASV, KJV) or “captain” (MSG). Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) describes:

The chiliarchos (“leader of a thousand”) is the head of a “Cohort” (speira) which ideally consisted of a thousand soldiers, though the numbers in reality could vary. Since this unit could muster two centurions and some four hundred and seventy soldiers as an escort for Paul’s journey to Caesarea (Acts 23:23), it must have been at full strength. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 382)

Despite being relatively high on the chain of command, in the Bible, Lysias is a middle man. He intercedes on Paul’s behalf by writing a letter to his superior, governor Felix (Acts 23:26-30).

Has anyone ever written a letter of recommendation on your behalf? Who has interceded for you? Why does Lysias go to such great lengths to aid a prisoner?

Lysias could not afford to lose a prisoner, but especially not one of Paul’s social standing. Most commentators concur that Lysias acted as he did in part due to social convention, namely that Paul was born a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37, 38, 22:25, 26, 27, 29, 23:27). Lysias himself admits that the turning point in his attitude toward Paul came when he learned that the prisoner was a citizen (Acts 23:27).

Not only was Paul a Roman citizen, but a lifelong one; an important factor in the relationship between jailer and prisoner. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) notes: “Since it was customary to take the name of the emperor in whose reign citizenship was acquired, the tribune’s name, Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26), may suggest the time of his purchase, namely, during Claudius’s reign (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 194).” As Claudius was a contemporary ruler, Lysias’ citizenship was likely a relatively new development.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) speculates,

That Paul was a Roman citizen by birth...threatened great damage to Claudius Lysias’ person and career...a severe breach of social convention would have been involved if a more “honorable” Roman citizen had been mistreated by one who had merely bought his citizenship...Probably Lysias had worked his way up through the military ranks but would have been barred from the rank of tribune because he was not already a citizen of equestrian rank. He solved this problem through a bribe. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 681.)

In short, most believe that Lysias aided Paul in deference to his higher social status. If this is the case, not much has changed in two thousand years.

Throughout the plot to ambush him, Paul trusted the government and in fact, worked the system for passage to Rome. When the conspirator’s plot reached him, the apostle trusted his captors to do the right thing. This seems consistent with Paul’s public stance on the Christian’s relationship to the government (Romans 13:1-7).

Paul lived by the system and he would eventually die by the system as well. Tradition asserts that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero at Tre Fontane Abbey.

Have you ever changed your attitude towards someone based upon acquiring a new piece of information about them? Do you trust the system to work for you? Should you? Would Paul have trusted the government as much had he not been a Roman citizen? For Paul, was trusting the government an extension of trust in God?

“The trust of the people in the leaders reflects the confidence of the leaders in the people.” - Paulo Freire (1921-1997), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 169

Jethro Principle: In-law Helping Outlaw

2012-01-05T15:00:00.000-08:00

Moses sat to judge the people, and they came to him from morning to evening. Who counseled him not to do this? His father-in-law, Jethro (Exodus 18:19)

Wanted for murder in Egypt (Exodus 2:11-14), Moses fled to Midian, married the daughter of the local priest, Jethro (Exodus 2:15-22), and settled for forty years (Exodus 2:23; Acts 7:29-30). After Moses returned to Egypt and freed the Israelites from slavery (Exodus 3:1-14:31), Jethro visited Moses in the wilderness (Exodus 18:1-6). After catching up (Exodus 18:7-12), Jethro quickly realized that his son-in-law was the upstart nation’s sole arbiter and that no one ought carry that burden alone (Exodus 18:13-16). The Supreme Court simply cannot handle every case.

Moses needed to know his role and its limitations. Jethro warned Moses that if he did not reduce his workload that he would “wear out” (Exodus 18:18 NASB).

Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you are doing is not good. You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. (Exodus 18:17-18 NASB)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) explains, “The literal meaning of the Hebrew verb is ‘to wither’—an appropriate idiom in an agricultural society for exhaustion from work as ‘burnout’ is in a modern technological society (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 491).”

Jethro did not merely criticize his son-in-law but also offered a practical solution. Jethro’s two-fold strategy kept Moses as the people’s representative before God (Exodus 18:18-22) but delegated smaller matters to subordinates (Exodus 18:22). Moses would still handle the most difficult cases and the buck still stopped with him. As the well known management saying advises, “You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.”

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) explains, “They are to organize themselves in a decentralized structure, having authority at various levels in the community, bringing only the most difficult cases to Moses for decision (see Deuteronomy 1:9-18). The responsibility for justice is thus dispersed throughout the community. (Fretheim, Exodus: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 199).”

Jethro’s solution represented a win-win scenario as deputation not only benefitted Moses, but the Israelites as well (Exodus 18:23). Medical missionaries Tom Hale and Stephen Thorson analyze:

This would allow Moses to concentrate on matters only he could handle, and at the same time it would develop and encourage other leaders within the community of Israel. Too often leaders think they are indispensable, that only they are competent to carry out the duties of leadership; but such an attitude is plainly arrogant. For Moses, Jethro’s advice was wise; it is wise for us as well. A New Testament example of the wisdom of delegation is found in Acts 6:1-6. (Applied Old Testament Commentary: Applying God’s Word to Your Life, 236).

Moses had the strength to let go and followed Jethro’s instructions (Exodus 18:23-27). The passage offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain into the molding of Israel as a nation. John I. Durham (b. 1933) refers to the incident as “the best picture we have in the Old Testament of how the system worked and a clear designation of God as the authority of both the law and its interpretation.” (Durham, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3: Exodus , 253). The story also sets the stage for the giving of the law in the following chapters.

Are you in danger of withering? What responsibilities do you need to delegate? What were the benefits of following Jethro’s strategy? Is micromanaging ever appropriate?

In alluding to this passage, some management experts refer to the “Jethro Principle” which in its simplest iteration states that leadership should be shared. Even Moses needed both divine and human helpers. Rabbi David Baron writes:

The name of Moses usually evokes images of a lone figure towering over his flock, not quite a god but not merely a mortal, either. When we look at examples of how a single human being can be a force for change in the world, we think of him...But neither the image of Moses the towering law giver nor that of Moses the fully actualized man shows us the reality: he was part of a team. Not even Moses could do it alone. (Baron, Moses on Management: 50 Leadership Lessons from the Greatest Manager of All Time, 112-113)

Not surprisingly, one of Moses’ helpers was his father-in-law. Scholars have long speculated as to just how much influence the Midianite priest had on the nascent Israelite nation. In her1939 novelization of the familiar Exodus story, Moses, Man of the Mountain, Zora Neale Hurston (1891-1960) gives many of God’s lines to Jethro, including being the impetus for Moses’s rescue mission in Egypt (Hurston, 120-121). Baron speculates, “Jethro may have played an even more important role in Moses’ development: some scholars believe that he taught Moses monotheism. So great was the respect the ancient sages had for the Midianite priest Jethro that they named the portion of the Bible that contains the Ten Commandments ‘Yitro’ after him (Baron, 115).”

For his part, Jethro notes that his system is from God (Exodus 18:23). Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) comments, “The remarkable thing is that the Old Testament itself does not seem to have any problem with the issue. The narrative moves back and forth with apparent ease between advice offered on the level of practical expediency (Exodus 18:17ff) and statements about God’s will which supports the plan (Exodus 18:19, 23). No tension appears between these two poles because both are seen to reflect the divine will to the same extent (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 332).”

How much of an influence do you think Jethro had on Moses? What is the best advice you ever received from your in-laws? Why does the Bible share Jethro’s contribution and the process instead of merely recording the results? When has God spoken to you through the practical voice of another human being?

“Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere as long as the policy you’ve decided upon is being carried out.” - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), Fortune Magazine, September 15, 1986

The House of Mirth

2012-01-03T15:00:00.000-08:00

Complete: “The heart of the wise is the house of mourning, but _____________________________________________.” The heart of fools is in the house of mirth (Ecclesiastes 7:4)

Ecclesiastes is one of five Biblical books classified as wisdom literature. The book documents the sayings of “the Preacher” (Ecclesiastes 1:1 NASB), often left untranslated as Qohelet. Ecclesiastes 7 addresses a theme common to wisdom literature — the contrast of wisdom and folly. For Qohelet, one of the dividing lines between wisdom and folly is an awareness of one’s finitude.

The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning,
While the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure. (Ecclesiastes 7:4 NASB)

Ecclesiastes 7:4 uses antithetical parallelism, a juxtaposition of opposites, to contrast the sage and the fool. Qohelet claims that the mind of the fools resides in the house of “mirth” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “pleasure” (HCSB, NASB, NIV). The traditional translation, “the house of mirth”, was immortalized by Edith Wharton (1862-1937) in her 1905 novel of the same name. The book examines the fashionable New York elite, whose surface achievement and refinement in the house of mirth conceals a moral vacuum that contributes to the death of the book’s protagonist, Lily Bart.

Qohelet says that the wise are always aware of their pending date with death. Tremper Longman III explains, “In keeping with the previous verses, he states his belief that those who are wise contemplate their ultimate death, while fools are those who blithely live as if there is no end in sight (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 184).”

William H. Bicksler (b. 1933) adds,“The wise are in the house of mourning, the place of death, much like tragedies are so much truer to life than comedies (Bicksler, Commentary on Ecclesiastes: The Believing Skeptic with a Message, 115).”

Craig G. Bartholomew (b. 1961) claims that Qohelet is actually advocating a preoccupation with death:

This does not just refer to healthy awareness of one’s finitude but to an obsession with death. The heart is the center of the person and for Qohelet the “wise” person’s center dwells in the house of mourning. Qohelet’s logic leads him to the view that the wise person is consumed with death and the fool with celebration and joy. (Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 248)

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) posited that a human could not fully process the concept of one’s own death. Freud writes, “It is indeed impossible to imagine our own death; and whenever we attempt to do so we can perceive that we are in fact still present as spectators. Hence the psychoanalytic school could venture on the assertion that at bottom no one believes in his own death, or to put the same thing in another way, in the unconscious every one of us is convinced of his own immortality (Freud, “Thoughts for Our Times on War and Death”, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume 14, 289).” For Freud, on some level, all humans are fools dwelling in the house of mirth.

How would you put this verse into modern terms? Does Qohelet suppose that wise people should never venture to the house of pleasure? What are the lessons of the funeral home? What benefit is there to contemplating one’s own death?

The realization of one’s death provides the opportunity for a new awareness of life. James L. Crenshaw (b. 1934) explains that “the thought flows logically from Ecclesiastes 7:1 to Ecclesiastes 7:4. In these ‘better’ sayings Qohelet seems captivated by death’s finality. Since everyone eventually dies, a realist prepares for that moment. In considering that unwelcome event one encounters an astonishing paradox: suffering can instruct, purge the spirit, and offer increased learning. An astute observer of life makes a path for the house of mourning, anticipating an encounter with the essence of human existence.” (Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 134-135).

Iain Provan (b. 1957) adds that there is a moral byproduct to this revelation:

Depth is, in fact, a characteristic of the person who lives in the light of reality, just as superficiality is the mark of the life in denial. The wise person knows the value of things. This is clear from Ecclesiastes 7:5-6, where words having moral content and directed at the important question of how we should live (the “rebuke”) are preferred to the inane, pointless (hebel, NIV “meaninglessness”) , sounds produced by fools, whether in song or in laughter. (Provan, The NIV Application Commentary: Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs)

Commentators have long been befuddled by the stark contrast between this passage and other sayings in Ecclesiastes, most notably the “carpe diem” (“seize the day”) passages (Ecclesiastes 2:24-26, 3:12-14, 22, 5:18-20, 8:15, 9:7-10). Longman writes, “It is important to feel the tension between this verse and the carpe diem passages that appear throughout the book. In the latter, Qohelet asserts that there is ‘nothing better’ than the pleasures of eating, drinking, and working, while here he seems to say that such an attitude is the mark of the fool. These tensions lead to the conclusion...that Qohelet is a confused wise man who doubts the traditions of his people (Longman, 184).”

Leonard S. Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) expound:

The verse seems to say that wherever they are, the wise think about mortality and the limitations of the human condition, while fools seek only personal enjoyment and pleasure. The Targum relates the verse to the destruction of the Temple: the wise mourn and reflection its destruction, while the fools are indifferent and engage in irresponsible behavior...Perhaps Kohelet is recommending that we focus on death in order to appreciate the days we are alive. Such a perspective would be consistent with Ecclesiastes 2:24, from which this teaching would have emerged naturally. Or perhaps, from the perspective of old age, Kohelet has simply changed his mind. If so, then Ecclesiastes 2:24 contradicts this verse, which may be why, in his comment on the previous verse, Ibn Ezra reminds the reader that the Rabbis sought to suppress this book because they felt that its verses (and therefore its teachings) included inherent contradictions. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Kohelet: A Modern Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 65)

Perhaps Qohelet was not confused, was not self contradictory and did not change his mind. Perhaps the proper perspective upon one’s own mortality lies somewhere between living moment to moment, seizing the present day and dwelling on the inevitably of death at an unknown future date.

What is the proper attitude toward one’s own death? Have you faced your own death? Do you dwell in the house or mourning or the house of mirth?

“To suspect your own mortality is to know the beginning of terror, to learn irrefutably that you are mortal is to know the end of terror.” - Frank Herbert (1920-1986), Children of Dune, p. 132

Esau a.k.a "Red"

2012-01-02T15:00:00.000-08:00

What was Esau’s other name? Edom

Isaac’s son, Esau, was a hairy redhead. The Bible tells us that he was born that way (Genesis 25:25). As a fellow hairy redhead, I have always viewed him as the Bible’s most handsome character which is clearly evidenced in this quilt created by Marilyn Belford entitled “For a Mess of Pottage”...

At birth, Esau was given his name. John C.L. Gibson (1930-2008) informs, “Its real meaning is unknown, though presumably the Hebrews were aware of it. (Gibson, Genesis (Daily Study Bible), 140).”

Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. (Genesis 25:25 NASB)

Based upon context clues, it can be inferred that Esau’s name was in some way associated with his physical appearance but its precise meaning is uncertain. Isaac’s son is the only Bible character with the name.

During the first story told of Esau, the character is endowed with another name when his younger twin, Jacob, convinces him to trade his birthright for a pot of “red stuff”(Genesis 25:27-34). With that Esau became synonymous with Edom, which means “red” (Genesis 25:30, 36:1, 8, 19, 43).

and Esau said to Jacob, “Please let me have a swallow of that red stuff there, for I am famished.” Therefore his name was called Edom. (Genesis 25:30 NASB)

This verse marks the first time the word “red” is used in the Bible but hardly the last. Edom will become the name of the nation of Esau’s descendants. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) notes “that not all Jacob-Esau stories equate Esau with Edom, but that this identification is rooted in ch. 25.” (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 275).”

Though contextually the name does not relate only to his hair, in this story, Esau becomes the first in a long line of redheads who used “Red” as a proper name. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) expounds:

Esau’s name was first explained in Genesis 25:30 — he was called “ruddy” (’admônî) all over, like a “hairy garment”...so they named him “Esau”...Genesis 25:30 expands that explanation...Running through these two verses is an emphasis on redness or some shade thereof...Esau is one of two individuals in the Old Testament whose natural appearance is described as red. Both he and David are called ’admônî (Genesis 25:20; I Samuel 16:12, 17:42) C.H. Gordon had provided evidence from Egypt, Crete, Ugarit, and Homer showing that men (but never women) are colored red or reddish brown when they assumed heroic or ceremonial purposes.” (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 183)

Being redheaded is distinctive. People with other hair colors are not known by their hair hue, only redheads. Anthropologist Grant McCracken (b. 1951) explains, “Of course, part of the ‘problem’ with redheads is that there aren’t enough of them. They make up just two percent of the population. So they’re pretty extraordinary. Redheads are too numerous to be ignored, too rare to be accepted (McCracken, Big Hair: A Journey Into the Transformation of Self, 102).”

Do you have more than one name? If you were a color, what color would you be? How many people named “Red” can you think of? What do you associate with the color red?

It is natural to compare Jacob and Esau. They were the Bible’s first twin brothers and are juxtaposed many times in Scripture (Genesis 25:27, 28, 27:22; Joshua 24:4; Obadiah 1:18; Malachi 1:2; Romans 9:13). The twins’ names also make for an interesting comparison. Both have two names (Jacob/Israel, Esau/Edom), the second of which was given later and the name the nations they spawned adopted (Genesis 25:26, 32:28, 35:10).

Jacob’s names relate to his character and his adopted name, Israel, refers to one of the most profound moments of his life (Genesis 32:24-32). In contrast, Esau’s names refer to his physical appearance and his adopted name refers to one of his greatest failures (Genesis 25:27-34).

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) writes:

The parenthetical aside that connects the name “Edom” (’ědôm) with the “red” (’ādōm) concoction reinforces the link between the progenitor and his offspring. The play on the name is not complimentary, since it brings to mind Esau’s ineptness in dealing with the artful Jacob. It also recalls the birth conflict where he was described there as “red” (Genesis 25:25). By the convergence of the wordplays, the author shows that these events by which Jacob gets the better of Esau proved the veracity of the oracle (Genesis 25:23). (Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 11:27-50:26, 392)

Harvey J. Fields (b. 1935) adds, “Before and after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., the rabbis used the name ‘Edom’ as a code name for Rome. They believed that, one day, Esau-Edom-Rome, would be defeated and that Jacob-Israel would be victorious. They predicted that ‘God will throw Edom-Rome out of heaven...Edom-Rome will be slaughtered...Edom-Rome will be destroyed by fire.’ (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 4:9) (Fields, A Torah Commentary for Our Times: Genesis, 62)”

Would you rather be named for a physical feature or a character trait? Is the text, written by Jacob’s descendants, fair to Esau? If you were named for your greatest triumph or most heart wrenching failure, what would your name be?

“When red headed people are above a certain social grade their hair is auburn.” - Mark Twain (1835-1910), A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, p. 152

Pitching the Ark

2011-12-29T15:00:00.000-08:00

How was Noah’s ark made watertight? With pitch, inside and out (Genesis 6:14)

One of the best known Bible stories is that of Noah’s ark (Genesis 6:1-8:19). After informing Noah of the coming apocalypse (Genesis 6:13), God provided him with specific instructions regarding how to construct the ark (Genesis 6:14-16). God actually told Noah about the ark before revealing details that seem more pertinent - that a flood was coming (Genesis 6:17) and that he and his family would be spared, the remnant responsible for repopulating the earth (Genesis 6:18). (No pressure in that assignment...). One of the first instructions Noah received was to coat the massive box he was to build with pitch, inside and out (Genesis 6:14).

“Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.” (Genesis 6:14 NASB)

Most modern translations render the Hebrew word kaphar as “pitch” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), though some paraphrases interpret “tar” (CEV, NLT). Pitch is a black glutinous substance that belongs to the same family as asphalt and bitumen. In fact, the Latin Vulgate translates the word bitumine and the Greek Septuagint uses asphaltos, both obvious cognates.

The source of this pitch has sparked debate. Today, pitch is most commonly the residue produced when coal tar is heated or distilled. Proponents of a young earth assert that the pitch was not derived from oil or coal but rather from gum based resins extracted from pine trees. For centuries pitch was manufactured by distilling or heating wood and Noah had access to a lot of lumber in constructing the massive floating box. (It is from this method of making pitch that North Carolina gets its nickname, the “Tar Heel State”.) Opponents counter that bitumen and other petroleum-based byproducts were plentiful in Noah’s region and that bitumen would have been far easier to procure as it has been found in pools and could have been quickly consolidated into a bucket, not to mention easier to apply.

Regardless of its source, the pitch was presumably employed for waterproofing purposes. John H. Walton (b. 1952) explains, “Coating something with pitch was a standard procedure in the ancient world for assuring that the structure would be waterproof (Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, 312).” As such, pitch was a safety measure as God desired to spare the new generation.

The same method was used to protect another prominent Old Testament figure. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) reminds, “The Hebrew word for ‘ark’ was used in Genesis to refer to Noah’s ship. The only other place that Hebrew word appears in the Old Testament is in Exodus 2:3, 5 when it is translated ‘basket’ — the basket into which Moses’ mother placed him to drift down the Nile. Just as the great pitch-covered ark/basket preserved Noah and his family from a watery death, so the tiny pitch-covered ark/basket preserved Moses (cf. Genesis 6:14 and Exodus 2:3) (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 133).”

The pitch coating was just one of eight details the text provides in recounting the remarkably precise design of the ark (Genesis 6:14-16). Claus Westermann (1909-2002) notes, “The eight pieces of information, one of which...is incomprehensible, are not sufficient to permit a detailed reconstruction, which is often attempted; not even the number of rooms is given. However, we have a general idea of the ark: a huge, rectangular box with a roof divided into rooms. Genesis 6:14-16...[is] not based on any systematic plan of construction as has been proposed...any such would be unusable...The details of the commission to build the ark develop out of the unique function it is meant to fulfil; they are to be understood only in this context. Each particular detail serves to emphasize the uniqueness of the construction (Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, 418).”

Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) explains, “Behind the strange precision in the directions for building the ark, and later in the actual Flood account, behind the precise dates and measurements, there is both certainty of the absolute concreteness and reality of God’s activity and an effort to depict God’s activity, his commands, and movements with as much theological objectivity as possible (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 127).”

Why do you think God told Noah of the ark before mentioning the flood? Why was the double coating of pitch, both inside and out, advised? Have you ever covered anything in pitch? What safety measures have you taken to waterproof your home?

Many have seen the pitch used in the ark as symbolic of a greater protection. Genesis 6:14 marks the first time the word kaphar is used in Scripture. Its simplest meaning is “to cover”. It is used 102 times in the Old Testament yet this passage represents the only time the King James Version (KJV) translates it “pitch”. In 73 of its 102 uses, the KJV renders the word“atonement”.

John MacArthur (b. 1939) expounds:

“That word (kapher) in Hebrew is exactly the same word translated ‘atonement.’ It can be either...In the ark of safety, the pitch kept the waters of judgment out. And the pitch in the life of believers is the blood of Christ, which secures us from any judgment. The pitch in the ark was what kept the water out, and the blood of Christ seals the believer from the flood of God’s judgment.” (MacArthur, The Keys to Spiritual Growth: Unlocking the Riches of God, 58)

Our eternal atonement was provided by the blood of Jesus which provided a covering for sin. “Love covers a multitude of sins” (I Peter 4:8 NASB).

Have you accepted God’s loving atonement?

“The beginning of atonement is the sense of its necessity.” - Lord Byron (1788-1824)

There is No "I" in Heaven

2011-12-27T15:00:00.000-08:00

Into what heaven was the man who Paul knew caught up? The third heaven (II Corinthians 12:2)

One of the many obstacles Paul faced in Corinth was responding to braggart preachers who arrived after he had departed (II Corinthians 11:16-18). In confronting these critics, Paul (almost playfully) boasts of his own accomplishments in Christ. After outlining his sufferings (II Corinthians 11:23-33), the apostle shifts to the third person for his most dramatic boast (II Corinthians 12:1-9). He famously writes of an ecstatic experience:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. (II Corinthians 12:2 NASB)

In stating that the incident occurred fourteen years ago, Paul is registering a definitive memorable experience, a happening that occurred nearly a decade before he entered Corinth. Paul may be sharing this episode for the first time as there appears to have been a gag order placed upon such visits (II Corinthians 12:4). The time marker serves as a reminder that this event was unique and not an everyday occurrence even for a spiritual guru like Paul.

Though Paul regularly experienced visions, many involving Jesus (Acts 9:3-6, 9:12, 16:9, 18:9, 22:17), the apostle does not classify this incident as a vision. In fact, he does not classify it at all. Paul asserts that God only knows how it happened conceding only that he was “caught up” (Ezekiel 8:1-3; Wisdom of Solomon 4:10-11; I Enoch 39:3, 52:1). Paul evidently asked the natural question that Talking Heads sang about in “Once in a Lifetime” - “you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?”

In refusing to speculate as to whether he was abducted or underwent an out of body experience, Paul resisted the urge to categorize his experience. Some have suggested this ambiguity is a rebuttal of the Greek notion that one’s soul could ascend to God. This discussion fits with the Corinthians’ interest in the body/spirit dichotomy (I Corinthians 15:35-44; II Corinthians 5:6-8). Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) comments:

Not knowing whether he was in the body or out of it (II Corinthians 12:2-3) might be rhetorical aporia (feigned uncertainty), but Paul has already contrasted being at home in the body with the afterlife of being away from the body and at home with the lord (II Corinthians 5:6-8). Although in some Jewish texts only the souls were caught up to see heaven (I Enoch 71:1-6), sometimes the experience sounds as if it involves the entire body (Ezekiel 2:2, 3:14, 24, 8:3, 11:1, 24; Wisdom of Solomon 4:11; I Enoch 39:3).” (Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 238).”

The modern reader must resolve that if the details were important, Paul would have shared them.

Paul further complicates the incident by mentioning “paradise” in the same breath as “third heaven” (II Corinthians 12:4). Paradise is a loan word from Persia and appears only three times in the New Testament (Luke 23:43; II Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7). In the intertestamental literature it had come to mean the realm entered upon death or the dimension where God dwells. As Paul incorporates two distinct terms, some have suggested a two step progression in which the third heaven was merely a step on the stairway to paradise.

This view is unlikely. Jewish literature often equates the third heaven with paradise (II Enoch 8:1; Apocalypse of Moses 37:5, 40:1). The fact that Paul uses the same verb for “caught up” (harpazo) in describing both places also underscores a singular experience (II Corinthians 12:1, 4). Most tellingly, as Paul is discussing the pinnacle of ecstatic phenomenons, there would be no need to reference the third heaven if it were not a watershed event. The very nature of the text screams for a single event.

The passage is also problematic to modern readers as Paul assumes a subtext that is no longer common - the third heaven itself (II Corinthians 12:2). This marks the only time the third heaven appears in Scripture and there was no consensus in Jewish literature as to how meany “heavens” existed. Keener explains:

“Because the Persian loan word ‘paradise’ meant ‘garden,’ it applied well to the garden in Eden (Genesis 2:8-3:24 LXX; Josephus Ant. 137). Jewish people spoke of paradise as in heaven (T. Ab. 20:14; 3 Bar. 4:6) and expected a new paradise or Eden in the future (4 Ezra 7:36, 8:52; 2 Bar 51:11). Jewish texts placed paradise, the new Eden, on earth in the coming age, but heaven in at the present. Jewish texts ranged from 3 to 365 in the number of heavens they imagined; the most common numbers were three (T. Levi 2-3) and seven. Texts often placed paradise in one of these (in the third in 2 En. 8:1; Apoc. Mos. 37:5, 40:1); the lowest of ‘heavens’ was the lower atmosphere. Paul presumably envisions paradise as in the third of three heavens .” (Keener, 239)

Thomas D. Stegman (b. 1963) concurs:

“Paul declares that he was transported to the third heaven, a place he then identifies as Paradise. He thus intimates that he was temporarily taken up by God to the highest place in heaven, where the divine glory dwells. Given that Paul referred to ‘visions and revelations’ of the Lord Jesus, does he suggest here that he was set in the presence of the glorified Christ? Perhaps, although he does not register what he saw. Instead, he reports that he heard ineffable things, which no one may utter. These ‘unutterable utterances’–surmised by some commentators to be angelic praises or revelations of divine mysteries–were beyond what human language could convey. What is more, even if he were able, the Apostle states, he is not permitted to do so.” (Stegman, Second Corinthians (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 268)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) describes this cosmology succinctly, “The third heaven probably means ‘right up to the highest heaven,’ the heaven of the Lord’s abode as distinct from the starry heavens (the second heaven) and the earth’s atmosphere (the first heaven [compare I Kings 8:27]) (Gundry, Commentary on Second Corinthians).”

Paul is discussing a single event, rare even for him, that represented the apex of spiritual encounters. The number and terminology are insignificant as whether one names that abode as the third heaven, paradise or something else, Paul was transported into the very presence of God.

Do you have any spiritual experiences too sacred to discuss? Did this episode in Paul’s life occur before, during or after his profound experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-9)? How did Paul get to the third heaven? What was the apostle doing when he was transported? How would you explain this incident?

In its simplest form, this passage answers Paul’s bragging detractors and the message is clear - you can’t top this. Paul’s visit to the third heaven means that if the criteria is ecstatic, supernatural experience, Paul wins. Hands down.

Throughout his diatribe, Paul is aware of the foolishness of his own boasting, the same complaint he has against his detractors (II Corinthians 11:16-18, 21, 23, 12:1). He readily admits, “I am speaking as a fool (II Corinthians 11:21 NASB).” Even amidst his own “boasting”, Paul does all he can to deprecate himself. He also uses the passive voice of “caught up” to describe the happening (II Corinthians 12:1, 4), meaning it was done to him not by him. He did nothing. Stegman expounds:

“There is a certain playfulness with which Paul recounts his journey to the third heaven: he is not certain how he was taken up, he does not report what he saw, and he cannot repeat what he heard. He thereby suggests that, while this mysterious experience was important to him personally, it did not provide him with information he could use in his ministry. It is certainly not reason to boast about himself. Rather, he implies a critique of the intruding missionaries: ‘If their experience was the same as Paul’s, it contributed nothing to their ministry. If it was something about which they talk, it was less ineffable than his.’” (Stegman, 268)

In speaking of visions, Paul also reverts to the third person, refusing the word “I”. (The modern equivalent might be someone who instead of admittedly speaking on their own behalf instead says, “I have this friend....”) For Paul, there is no “I” in heaven as the apostle realizes he did nothing to generate or merit the experience.

Paul recognizes that it is the height of folly to brag of revelations from God. Only an idiot boasts of something so clearly the work of Another.

What was the purpose of Paul’s visit to the third heaven? In what ways, if any, did it benefit him? Do people still visit the third heaven? What is your most dramatic spiritual/supernatural experience? When have you taken credit for God’s handiwork?

“The less you speak of your greatness, the more shall I think of it.” - attributed to William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

Jahaziel: You can do it!

2011-12-26T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who told Jehoshaphat that his army did not need to fight “in this battle”? Jahaziel (II Chronicles 20:17)

During the reign of Jeshoshaphat, an alliance of Moabites, Ammonites, and Meunites camped at Engedi and prepared to invade Judah (II Chronicles 20:1-2). Ironically, these same nations had received clemency during the conquest of the Promised Land (Judges 11:15).

Jehoshaphat was left with few options. His army was outmanned against “a great multitude”(II Chronicles 20:2 NASB) and he was also out of time as his enemies had utilized the element of surprise. Engedi was a small site on the western coast of the Dead Sea located within 25 miles of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:62; I Samuel 23:29, 24:1; II Chronicles 20:1; Song of Solomon 1:14; Ezekiel 47:10). It was not a standard attack route as Jerusalem was only accessible using narrow paths up steep cliffs. In taking this unconventional passage, the opposing armies were too close for comfort and the king faced a desperate situation.

In the face of overwhelming odds, Jehoshaphat responded as a model Davidic king should. Recognizing that he was out of options, he proclaimed a national fast (II Chronicles 20:3) and the king prayed on behalf of his subjects (II Chronicles 20:5-12). The people assembled, but instead of preparing for battle, they prayed and fasted (II Chronicles 20:4, 13). It was the only thing left to do.

God responded to Jehoshaphat’s humble prayer with an encouraging prophetic word (II Chronicles 20:14-17). The word of the Lord enveloped Jahaziel and prompted his lone voice to ring out from the multitude (II Chronicles 20:14). Jahaziel functions like the encouraging “Townie” (Rob Schneider) in The Waterboy (1998) who often shouted, “You can do it!” from the crowd.

Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; and he said, “Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the LORD to you, ‘Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God’s. Tomorrow go down against them. Behold, they will come up by the ascent of Ziz, and you will find them at the end of the valley in front of the wilderness of Jeruel. You need not fight in this battle; station yourselves, stand and see the salvation of the LORD on your behalf, O Judah and Jerusalem.’ Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out to face them, for the LORD is with you.” (II Chronicles 20:14-17 NASB)

This dramatic speech marks Jahaziel’s only appearance in the Bible. Jahaziel was a worship leader, not a prophet (II Chronicles 20:14). Yet in this instance, Jahaziel prophesied as evidenced by the fact that he is introduced by the prophetic-type description “the Spirit of the LORD came upon” (II Chronicles 20:14 NASB) and he adopts the prophetic messenger formula “thus says the LORD to you” (II Chronicles 20:15 NASB). This wording may also indicate spontaneity.

Jahaziel is provided an irregularly long genealogy that emphasizes his pedigree (II Chronicles 20:14). A lineage of five generations links him with Asaph, a worship leader at the time of David (I Chronicles 15:16-17) who is credited with penning twelve psalms (Psalms 50, 73-83). For some interpreters, Jahaziel’s ancestry seems too good to be true. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) explains:

“The figure of Jahaziel has many artificial features: his name, ‘the one who sees God’, his affiliation with the singers, who are conceived in Chronicles as prophets (I Chronicles 25:1, 2, 3, 5), and his direct descent from Asaph, the assumed head-singer of David’s time, all point to the ‘literary’ nature of this figure.” (Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 793)

In Jahaziel’s case, a voice quite literally emerged from the choir to speak for the Lord.

When have you been caught dead to rights with prayer left as your only resort? When in your desperation has God supplied a voice of encouragement? Why is such a long lineage ascribed to Jahaziel? Why did God choose to speak in these circumstances through a worship leader as opposed to a military tactician?

H.G.M. Williamson (b. 1947) notes that Jahaziel’s prophecy is modeled as a “salvation oracle” (Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (New Century Bible Commentary, 297-299). His speech is carefully constructed and closely follows the prescribed speech for a priest before battle (Deuteronomy 20:2-4). The prophecy also met Judah’s needs as it responded to each point in Jehoshaphat’s prayer (II Chronicles 12:5-12) by providing reassurance (II Chronicles 20:15, 17), reasons for confidence - namely that the battle is God’s (II Chronicles 20:15, 17) and precise instructions on how to proceed (II Chronicles 20:16, 17).

Among Jahaziel’s words of encouragement is the assertion that the Israelites will win the battle without engaging in combat (II Chronicles 20:17). For them, this fight was to be a spectator sport as their directions amounted to “Don’t do something, just stand there!” This “strategy” reinforced the king’s reliance on God as the battle became God’s (not Jehoshaphat’s) and God promised to defeat the invaders.

Jahaziel’s oracle also subtly alludes to another time when God famously defended Israelites as the speech has many uncanny parallels to Moses’ charge prior to the Exodus (Exodus 14:13-14). Most notably, Israel won an improbably victory while being onlookers - “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today” (Exodus 14:13 NASB).

Judah was to simply assume a defensive position at the Ascent of Ziz and encounter the enemy at the end of the wadi, by the wilderness of Jeruel (II Chronicles 20:16). There, God would fight for them. It is as if God was providing ringside seats for a battle they had bet their lives upon. In this case, doing nothing required a great act of faith. Gary N. Knoppers (b. 1956) explains, “In other words, the people are to leave the relative safety of Jerusalem, journey into open terrain, and encounter the enemy at a specific location. They are to put themselves in harm’s way, but they are told explicitly not to fight (Richard S. Hess & Gordon J. Wenham, “Jerusalem at War in Chronicles”, Zion: City of our God, 70-71).”

William Johnstone (b. 1936) expounds:

“The instruction by Jahaziel was not quietism (any more than Jehoshaphat’s prayer was fatalism). It is pure sacramentalism: Israel’s role is totally participatory—it goes fully armed into battle (II Chronicles 20:21); but the battle is the LORD’s. Israel, as the LORD’s host under the LORD’s anointed, is caught up unreservedly and with no volition on its own part into the action of God against the invading hordes of nations. With total openness to God and entire dependence upon him, it is borne irresistibly to victory (compare such sacred battles as Joshua 6 and I Samuel 7).” (Johnstone, 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement (1 and 2 Chronicles: Volume 2), 101)

As is often the case, when a courageous person stands alone, Jehaziel was soon joined (II Chronicles 20:18). Morale was boosted, the people obeyed God’s edict (II Chronicles 20:20-22) and God fulfilled his promise as the unholy alliance disbanded and the enemy armies killed one another (II Chronicles 20:23-25). Judah did not fight, but instead worshiped.

It is fitting that a worship leader was the one whose voice rang out as the event marked a worship service, not a battle. Tragedy was transformed into worship. Steven Shawn Tuell (b. 1956) quips, “The advance of Jeshoshaphat’s host is more a liturgical procession than a military maneuver (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 183).”

Simon J. de Vries (b. 1921) concurs writing that God “moves them to a good place of observation; this is like a liturgist moving the worshipers in a procession...This is a model of true worship: to express pure devotion while driving away every demon that assails the faithful (de Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Volume XI), 328.”

Roy D. Bell notices that “worship and praise became central to the whole encounter. II Chronicles 20:10 tells us that Jehoshaphat bowed his face to the ground and all the people of Judah and Jerusalem fell down and worshiped before the Lord. The Levites stood and praised the Lord with a loud voice...sometimes our praise is so quiet...that if God were not a supernatural being, He would not be able to hear it. The absence of worship, adoration and praise impoverishes our lives and even our churchgoing (Bell, Biblical Models of Handling Conflict, 61-62.)”

Has God ever reminded you of past successes to comfort you during a present trial? When have you accomplished something just by showing up? Have any of your tragedies been transformed into worship? Is your worship audible?

“Without worship, we go about miserable.” - A. W. Tozer (1897-1963)

Praying Under the Influence: Spirit, not Spirits

2011-12-23T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who accused Hannah of being drunk? Eli (I Samuel 1:14)

Hannah was a woman who, for her time, faced impossible circumstances. She was barren while her husband’s other wife, Peninah, was not (I Samuel 1:2). Peninah tormented Hannah by flaunting her fecundity (I Samuel 1:6). Hannah was a single-minded woman. Unfortunately, she wanted the one thing she did not have and seemingly could not have - a son (I Samuel 1:10-11). Strikingly, Hannah’s problems did not distance her from God but rather drew her closer, a fact that speak volumes of her. On a pilgrimage to the religious epicenter, Shiloh (Israel had not yet centralized in Jerusalem), Hannah prayed and wept bitterly (I Samuel 1:10).

Hannah poured her heart out in one of the few women’s prayers recorded in the Old Testament (I Samuel 1:10-11). She offered a simple, transactional prayer. It was also an unverbalized prayer as her lips moved but nothing came out (I Samuel 1:12-13). Hannah prayed silently because “she was speaking in her heart (I Samuel 1:13 NASB),” or read literally “to her heart”.

Miki Raver (b. 1945) notes the irregularity of this moment:

“In Hannah’s days, the sanctuary was primarily used for blood sacrifice. Hannah offered her rage as her burnt offering, her tears as her sacrificial lamb, her bitterness as her guilt offering. Hannah’s prayer marked the first time that heartfelt spontaneous prayer...replaced animal sacrifice as the central act of Jewish worship.” (Raver, Listen to Her Voice: Women of the Hebrew Bible , 110)

Unfortunately, Eli, the priest at Shiloh, failed to distinguish between wordless prayer and drunken mumbling and read her symptoms as inebriation (I Samuel 1:14).

Then Eli said to her, “How long will you make yourself drunk? Put away your wine from you.” (I Samuel 1:14 NASB)

Joseph B. Meszler (b. 1972) explains, “Hannah was so lost in the expression of her heart that an outside observer mistook the situation and thought she was drunk (Meszler, Facing Illness, Finding God: How Judaism Can Help You and Caregivers Cope When Body or Spirit Fails, 125).” Ironically, the offer that Hannah makes to God is that she will dedicate her son as a Nazirite (I Samuel 1:11), a religious vow that abided by several prohibitions including abstaining from alcohol (Numbers 6:1-12). Not only was Hannah sober, she was vowing that her unborn son would never drink.

Eli accused Hannah of pouring out the wine while in reality, she was pouring out her soul. The priest who should have been sympathetic to her needs adds insult to injury. Unfortunately, this was not the last time this would happen in the course of human history.

The priest accuses her of being drunk in the ancient equivalent of church. Sadly, in those troubled times, drunkenness may have been more common than sincere prayer. Drinking was customary at sacrificial meals (I Samuel 1:9, 18) and Eli may have had more experience with drunkards than praying people. Eli may even be projecting. John Woodhouse concludes, “In the light of what we will learn in chapter 2, it is likely that Eli’s misunderstanding was based on too many experiences of improper conduct at the Shiloh temple (see I Samuel 2:12-17) (Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word) , 32).”

One aim of this story is to illuminate Eli’s inadequacy. In fact, it will be the child that Hannah prays for, Samuel, that will replace Eli as Israel’s spiritual leader. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) characterizes Eli as “a man who watched lips instead of perceiving hearts, who judged profound spirituality to be profligate indulgence in spirits, who heard nothing when the Lord spoke (I Samuel 3:4, 6), and who criticized his sons for abusing the sacrificial system yet grew fat from their take (I Samuel 2:22-24, 4:18). Fittingly, in the end his powerful career was surpassed by those who were ‘nothing’–a socially powerless rural woman and a child (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary: Vol. 7), 69).”

To Eli’s credit, he quickly realized his misjudgment of Hannah and blessed her (I Samuel 1:17-18). Her prayer was answered (I Samuel 1:19-20) and as promised, she dedicated her first son, Samuel, to God (I Samuel 1:19-28). God also answered her prayer more abundantly than she could have imagined (Ephesians 3:20) as she later birthed five more children (I Samuel 2:21).

Do your problems lead you closer or farther from God? What problems do you need to take to God? Had Hannah been drunk, would it have made her prayer any less valid? What does it say of Eli that he instinctively assumed the worst? Why does Eli make his assumption?

On the surface, the two states - prayer and drunkenness- seem to be as divergent as possible. Yet they are confused more than once in Scripture. At Pentecost, the same accusation will be made as the onlookers mistake deep communion with God for drunkenness (Acts 2:13). Both of these incidents occurred at critical junctures as Samuel ushered in the era of kings and Pentecost welcomed the coming of the Holy Spirit. Both were christened with worship mistaken for intoxication.

Jim Cymbala (b.1943) feels Eli’s misclaculation is exemplary of a broader spiritual pattern: “Fortunately, Hannah didn’t react with anger or lose the spirit of prayer. Her experience at this moment points to an important lesson about prayer: If you pray, you will certainly become a target of Satan, who will immediately attack you with spiritual opposition and discouragement (Cymbala, Breakthrough Prayer , 149).”

Gotthilf Heinrich von Schubert (1780-1860) also relates Eli’s confusion to a what he sees as a widespread trend - the phenomenon of people mistaking the sacred for the profane, and the profane for the sacred (Schubert, Ansichten von der Nachtseite der Naturwissenschaft), 93). People often fail to distinguish what is and is not of God. Even clergy.

Part of Eli’s problem is that Hannah’s prayer was groundbreaking in many ways. Jeffrey M. Cohen explains:

“It was assumed at the time that one really required a prophet or priest to act as intermediary for private petitions (see I Samuel 12:19, 23)...It was probably not just the rarity of an individual offering up a private prayer, but also its protracted nature (I Samuel 12:12) that aroused his suspicion...Lengthy private prayers were...new to Eli...He preferred formal sacrifice–yet another reason for his harsh treatment of Hannah.” (Cohen, Blessed Are You: A Comprehensive Guide to Jewish Prayer, 18-19)

Hannah was ahead of her time as her model of prayer would become the norm. Steven Steinbock (b. 1958) writes, “This example of heartfelt prayer has had such an effect on subsequent generations of Jews that it has become the accepted model of traditional davening. This is why, particularly during the Amidah, it is traditional to mouth the blessings silently (Steinbock, The Gift of Wisdom: The Books of Prophets and Writings, 26).”

Hannah poured out her heart and her prayer was answered. In the process, this humble woman changed the way prayer was done.

Have you ever mistaken someone’s act of piety for evil? Is the line between sacred and profane as pronounced as most want to believe? Compare and contrast the symptoms of prayer and drunkenness. Have you ever worshiped so fervently that you were accused of drunkenness? If not, should you?

“Pray as you can, not as you can’t.” - Dom John Chapman (1865-1933)

Proverbs 25:11: A Way with Words

2011-12-20T15:00:00.000-08:00

Complete: “A word fitly spoken _____________________________________________.” Is like apples of gold in a setting of silver (Proverbs 25:11)

Our culture has many expressions downplaying the significance of words. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. In contrast, Proverbs rightly speaks highly of the value of words. The right word from the right person at the right time is life giving and priceless.

Like apples of gold in settings of silver
Is a word spoken in right circumstances. (Proverbs 25:11 NASB)

Apples of gold in settings of silver is an esoteric reference. That’s a good thing, right?

Proverbs periodically utilizes flowers and fruit in analogies related to words (Proverbs 12:14, 13:2, 25:11). Scholars debate which fruit is being discussed in Proverbs 25:11 as some think that the word rendered “apples” (Hebrew: tappuwach) is better understood as grapes or apricots (Proverbs 25:11; Song of Solomon 2:3, 5, 7:8, 8:5; Joel 1:12). Even so, almost all modern translations opt for apples (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV).

The CEV and the Message avoid the fruit discussion entirely by omitting the clause. This is edifying on some levels as the passage speaks not of fruit but rather jewelry. Bruce K. Waltke (b.1930) explains, “Apples of gold (see Proverbs 11:22) was preferred to ‘golden apples’ to connote the probability of their metal, not their color, as the parallel in Proverbs 25:12a shows.” (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (NICOT), 320).” Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) reports, “Though jewelry shaped as apples or apricots...is not extant, pomegranates are a common artistic motif, and a necklace with golden pomegranates was found in Late Bronze Cyprus (Bühlmann 1976:49) (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible), 782).”

The description of the trinket accentuates not just the centerpiece but its framing. In the first episode of the final season of “The Cosby Show”, Vanessa (Tempestt Bledsoe) stuns her parents by abruptly blurting out “I’m engaged!” (Episode: “With This Ring”, 9/19/1991) She then introduces her parents to her fiancé, Dabnis Brickey (William Thomas Jr.). As they converse, Vanessa’s parents learn that their daughter has been engaged for six months to a maintenance man at her college who is “knocking on thirty” and who has previously lived with more than one woman. Her father, Cliff (Bill Cosby), explains that he does not like Dabnis but it is not necessarily Dabnis’ fault. He likens their meeting to Dabnis’ favorite meal, a porterhouse steak with no white lines served with crispy potatoes and sauteed mushrooms...served on a used garbage can lid. He exclaims, “It’s in the presentation. That’s the way she brought you here–on a garbage can lid!” Context is important. Waltke interprets, “A proper decision is likened to golden apples, and the appropriate circumstance to a silver structure (Waltke, 320).”

On December 30, 1860, as the United States approached civil war, prominent Georgia politician Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883) implored the president elect Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) to make a public statement. Stephens alluded to Proverbs 25:11 when he wrote, “A word fitly spoken by you now would be like ‘apples of gold in pictures of silver.’” Lincoln reflected on Stephens’ biblical reference and found the principle “liberty to all” to be words fitly spoken. He responded:

The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture. So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. (Lincoln, “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union”, January 1861)

What other words have been fitly spoken? When has someone given you just the right words at just the right time? How would you phrase this proverb in modern terms?

Ironically, the proverb itself is a word fitly spoken situated within a broader canvas, a book of fitly worded aphorisms. The verse has value when standing alone but also has more layers when viewed within its context. Its surface message is simple - words are valuable. Fox paraphrases, “Eloquent words—even when they are reprimands—are like well-crafted jewelry in well-matched settings (Fox, 782).”

The verse’s meaning within the context of Proverbs has been seen by some as the key to reading the book and perhaps the Bible as a whole. From this perspective, Proverbs informs the reader as to how it is to be read – like an expert jeweler fitting a precious stone to a suitable setting.

Knut Martin Heim is one scholar who sees the verse as the key to the book of Proverbs. He even titled his book on the subject Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16. Tremper Longman III summarizes Heim’s position:

“He believes that scholars make a huge mistake by looking for thematic or logical development within these short units. He says that once a unit is determined it is equally possible to read it from beginning to end, the end to the beginning or from the middle outwards. Nonetheless, the units do provide a context in which the proverbs should be read. The analogy that he provides in terms of the association of proverbs within a unit is from the title of the book which is taken from Proverbs 25:11.” (“Reading Wisdom Canonically”, Canon And Biblical Interpretation (Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, V. 7), 355)

Leonard S. Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) paint this reading with broader strokes:

“The author presents a piece of jewelry, made up of a gold core covered with a silver filigree overlay, as the analog of a parable. The ‘silver apple’ is seen at a distance; coming closer the inner ‘golden apple’ is visible. A parable also has an outer and an inner aspect. In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides makes use of this verse to signal to his intended reader that he wrote the Guide in such a way that its hidden secrets can glimpsed through the filigree of its words.” (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 248)

How important is context when interpreting Scripture? Do you think that a text can have more than one correct interpretation? Why?

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” - Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Saul, Paul and Rebranding

2011-12-19T15:00:00.001-08:00

What was Paul’s former name? Saul of Tarsus

When Paul is introduced in the Bible, he is called Saul (Acts 7:58). Six chapters later, while serving with Barnabas in Cyprus, the text nonchalantly mentions that Paul and Saul are synonymous (Acts 13:9).

But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, (Acts 13:9 NASB)

No explanation is given for the alias and no one bestows the Hellenistic name on Saul yet for the remainder of Acts, the narrator speaks only of Paul. The only one who calls Paul “Saul” thereafter is Paul himself and only in repetitions of his testimony (Acts 22:7, 13, 26:14). For all intents and purposes, Saul is no more. Along with the new moniker, henceforth Paul’s name is listed first in each missionary tandem in which he appears, stylistically emblematic of leadership.

Saul’s namesake was Israel’s first king (I Samuel 9:17). Though Acts never mentions the fact, the future apostle (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5) and the former king both descended from the tribe of Benjamin (I Samuel 9:1-2, 21, 10:21, I Chronicles 12:1, 29; Acts 13:29). The connection between name and tribe has led some to speculate that the apostle was a distant heir of the king. Richard H. Bell (b. 1954) writes that “perhaps Paul’s family had a family tree which traced their origin through Ulam [I Chronicles 8:39-40] and Saul...Paul/Saul was therefore named after his most illustrious ancestor (Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel, 13).”

Counterintuitively, the name change does not coincide with Paul’s dramatic conversion (Acts 9:1-19). It does, however, serve a conscious literary purpose. Stanley B. Marrow (b. 1931) comments that “with the commencement of the apostle’s first missionary journey and at an important turning point in his career, the change of name from the very Semitic ‘Saul’ to the Greco-Roman ‘Paul’ should signal a far more significant change for the history of the world (Marrow, Paul: His Letters and His Theology: An Introduction to Paul’s Epistles, 7).” The name Paul was better suited to the missionary’s new Gentile context (I Corinthians 9:20-22).

Philip R. Davies (b. 1945) also sees a further poetic rationale:

“This replay of the persecution of a ‘son of David’ by a Saul might be thought fanciful; yet such a realisation surely did not escape the Benjamite Saul of Tarsus, nor the author of Acts—both of whom exhibit a fondness for scriptural analogies and precedents—nor indeed other reasonably knowledgeable Jews of that time.” (Rezetko, Lim & Aucker, Reflection And Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honor of A. Graeme Auld, 96)

Saul, a name reminiscent of royalty, becomes Paul, meaning “small” or “humble”. The name Paul fits with the missionary’s own belief that “I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (I Corinthians 15:9 NASB).”

Is there significance to the timing of the metamorphosis from Saul to Paul in Acts? Have you ever known anyone who changed their name? If you changed your name what would it be? Why? Why do you think Paul changed his name?

Some have conjectured that the apostle opted for a new Hellenistic name in part because his old Hebrew name had developed a derogatory meaning in Greek. Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch explain, “The connotation of the Greek adjective saulos (“loose, wanton”), which described the peculiar walking style of courtesans and effeminate males, might have prompted Luke (and Paul) to prefer to use “Paul.” (Malina and Pilch, Social-science Commentary on the Book of Acts, 90).” This would be the equivalent of modern women who had the proper name “Gay” changing it when the term became associated with homosexuality.

Many other reasons have also been given for the transition. Ben Witherinton III (b. 1951) posits the following theories:

This story may suggest that Paul took the name in order to aid in the process of converting another Paul who was a Gentile and a proconsul on Cyprus, Sergius Paulus...Possibly Παυλος should be seen as a nickname, meaning “the small one.”...Wilson, Paul, p. 30, conjectures that Paul’s Roman name was Gaius Julius Caesar on the basis of his family being one of those enfranchised in Tarsus by Julius Caesar or Augustus. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 310)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds, “Lucian of Samosota tells us of men who changed their names to signify a higher social status (The Cock 14; Timon 22) (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina),223).” C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) contributed that “Saul” was the name in the Antiochan source while “Paul” was better known to most (Barrett, Acts1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 609).

Most scholarship (included the luminaries listed above) concurs that despite common belief to the contrary, the shift to Paul was no change at all. Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-28) and the most probable suggestion for his names is that Paulos was one of the three proper names a Roman citizen would have. Malina and Pilch remind, “This verse does not support the common belief that Paul underwent a name change from Saul to Paul. It was common for members of the house of Israel to have two names: a Hebrew one for insiders, a Greek or Latin name for outsiders (Malina and Pilch, 90).” Barrett summarizes, “Paul is an alternative name, not a newly given one (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 195).”

Paul is mentioned by his Jewish name 22 times, all in Acts. As such, Paul never refers to the name Saul in any of his letters. To read Paul’s letters, it is as if Saul never existed.

Do your friends or family call you something different than outsiders? Are you known by different names in different contexts? Do you think Paul’s name served to distance the character from his previous deeds as Saul? Have you known of any person or business who rebranded to evade a bad reputation? What do you call yourself? How, if at all, has your name shaped you?

“The name of a man is a numbing blow from which he never recovers.” - sociologist Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)

Wrongfully Accused: Joseph’s Other Coat

2011-12-15T15:00:00.000-08:00

Where did Joseph leave his cloak? Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:12)

Joseph had a tough time keeping his clothes on. Joseph’s famous garment, his “coat of many colors” (Genesis 37:3), was used as false evidence of his presumed death (Genesis 37:31-33). In reality he was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:27-28) and found his way into Potiphar’s house (Genesis 37:36). Joseph thrived in this new environment and he was left in charge of everything, presumably even Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:4-5). As Robert Alter (b. 1935) quips, “Joseph may suffer from one endowment too many (Alter, The Art of the Biblical Narrative, 135).”

Potiphar’s name is mentioned only twice in the Bible (Genesis 37:36, 39:1) which is fitting as it is his wife who dominates the story. The unnamed woman unsuccessfully attempted to seduce Joseph on a daily basis (Genesis 39:7). (Potiphar’s was the ancient version of a “cougar”.) When her efforts failed, the scorned woman masterfully accused him of attempted rape, got the servants on her side, and kept his coat as evidence (Genesis 39:12-18).

She caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me!” And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside. (Genesis 39:12 NASB)

The word for cloak used here is beged, the most common term for garment in the Old Testament. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) comments:

It appears that it could refer both to an outer garment (II Kings 7:15) and an inner garment (Ezekiel 26:16). According to the end of Genesis 39:12 Joseph left all his beged with Potiphar’s wife, which means he left behind either his outer garment or one of his undergarments...By using beged at this point, the narrator may be implying something about Joseph’s own emotional involvement in the story. He is on the verge of acting faithlessly to his master. Also, it is interesting to note that the homonymous Hebrew verb bagad is sometimes used for marital unfaithfulness (Jeremiah 3:7-8, 20; Malachi 2:14). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 465)

Potiphar’s wife played the game well. She enlisted the servants as witnesses and even by the standards of the Law, a woman caught in rape was off the hook if she sought help (Deuteronomy 22:23-28). Despite his innocense (at least in action if not thought), Joseph was left imprisoned (Genesis 39:20) and Potiphar’s wife was left with the coat. Alter documents, “The Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 87:10 makes the brilliant if somewhat fanciful observation...that she spent the time kissing and caressing it (Alter, 138).”

What historical cases exist of people being convicted on the basis of false evidence? What do you do when you are wrongfully accused? Do you think that it is merely coincidence that discarded garments played a role in both of Joseph’s early trials? Do you think Joseph was entirely innocent in this episode?

Through God’s providence, things worked out well for Joseph (Genesis 39:21, 23, 50:20), Still, in this incident, no good deed goes unpunished and Joseph actually suffers for doing the right thing by resisting his employer’s wife’s advances. In contrast, the Bible records no negative consequences for Potiphar’s wife. Her story ends and she is written out of the text.

Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) included Potiphar’s wife in the eighth circle of hell in his famed The Divine Comedy (Inferno Canto XXX:91-129). Though she does not speak, Dante is told that, along with another perjurer, Sinon of Troy, she is condemned to suffer a burning fever for all eternity.

Is justice served in the account of Potiphar’s wife? Is there always an earthly consequence for sin? How should the Christian respond to the injustice in the world?

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” - Elie Wiesel (b. 1928)

God's Architecture

2011-12-14T15:00:00.000-08:00

Of what material is the wall constructed in the Holy City? Jasper (Revelation 21:18)

Near the conclusion of Revelation, John records a vision of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-27). He paints a picture of an opulent metropolis. Among the vivid details he provides is a city wall made of jasper.

The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. (Revelation 21:18 NASB)

Jasper is a compact translucent variety of quartz of the type called chalcedony. The name means “spotted (or speckled) stone”. Though commonly associated with shades of red, jasper is an opaque rock that can reflect virtually any color depending upon the mineral content of its original source. The ancient term “jasper” was not as precise as modern nomenclature. George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982) explains, “The word for ‘jasper’ in antiquity was not limited to the type of stone we call jasper, but could designate any transparent precious stone (Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 281).”

There is some debate as to the extent that jasper was used in the composition of the Holy City’s wall. Leon Morris (1914-2006) analyzed a Greek word (used only in Revelation 21:18) and concluded that “the word endōmēsis is unusual, but apparently means that of which the wall was built. In that case, it did not simply have jasper built into it but was built of jasper (Morris, Revelation (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 244).”

Robert H. Mounce (b. 1922) counters, writing that “because in the following verse the first of the city’s twelve foundations is made of jasper (Revelation 22:19), it would be well to understand this reference as indicating some sort of inlay of precious stone rather than solid jasper as a building material...In either case it is the splendor and worth of the wall that is so graphically reported (Mounce, The Book of Revelation (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) , 393).”

The building materials of the Holy city are like no human city. Human walls are not built with jasper. In addition to not being cost effective, the mineral breaks with a smooth surface, and as such is used for ornamentation or as a gemstone. Jasper is not used as a primary building material but rather to augment for aesthetic reasons. The wall is indicative of the Holy City’s other worldly quality.

Have you ever seen or heard of any edifice made of jasper? If you could construct your home from any material, what would it be? Why was the Holy City’s wall made of jasper?

This is not the first time that jasper is mentioned in Revelation. More than half of the Bible’s seven jasper references are in it’s final book (Exodus 28:20, 39:19; Ezekiel 28:13; Revelation 4:3, 21:11, 18, 19). The Holy City’s wall harkens back to the heavenly throne room where the One upon the throne appears like jasper (Revelation 4:3) and “before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal” (Revelation 4:6 NASB). As such, jasper is representative of God’s glory and the city exudes the glory of its maker and ruler.

The Holy City’s wall is of God and reveals God. Brian K. Blount (b. 1956) summarizes, “The same glory is symbolically embedded in the city’s very architectural essence (Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 390).”

As Satan has been vanquished (Revelation 20:10) and city walls were designed to protect, why does the Holy City need a wall? Why is jasper associated with God? Have you ever met anyone whose house suited them? In what ways does your home project your essence?

“Architecture is basically a container of something. I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea.” - renowned architect Yoshio Taniguchi (b. 1937)

Timothy's Mama's Family

2011-12-12T15:00:00.000-08:00

What was Timothy’s grandmother’s name? Lois.

At the outset of II Timothy, Paul gives thanks for his protégé and the letter’s recipient, Timothy (I Timothy 1:3-5). In fortifying Timothy, Paul is reminded him of Timothy’s spiritual heritage (II Timothy 1:5, 3:14-15). Timothy’s faithful mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois, are set apart for praise (II Timothy 1:5).

For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. (II Timothy 1:5 NASB)

This verse marks the only time the word “grandmother” appears in the Bible. It is also the only time the names Lois and Eunice emerge in Scripture. Even so, many have found inspiration from their lives. Their names have appeared as commensurate characters in literature. For instance, Lois and Eunice are protagonists in Francine Rivers’ And The Shofar Blew (2003) and side characters in Kirby Larson’s The Friendship Doll (2011).

Timothy’s mother is also referenced when he is introduced in the book of Acts (Acts 16:1). Though not named in the passage, she is described as a Jewess and believer though she may have been a lax Jew as she married a Greek (Acts 16:1) and Timothy was uncircumcised (Acts 16:3). As such, her spiritual heritage may have been as much Christian as Jewish.

Paul attributes Timothy’s faith in part to his raising. This is not uncommon. Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) comments, “Faith can be passed on through families. Religious instruction in the family unit is crucial to the transmission of the Christian tradition (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 30).”

Centuries of believers have learned tenets of the faith from their families faith. In Timothy’s case, Paul points specifically his grandmother, Lois. Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) explains: “The use of the word first (prōton) in this context has been supposed to indicate that Lois was a devout Jewess and was the first to inculcate religious faith in Timothy; in other words from his earliest days he had been surrounded by religious faith. Yet if Christian faith is intended, prōton, may mean that Lois was the first to become Christian, followed by Eunice and her son (Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 137).”

What are the biggest lessons your mother and grandmother have taught you? What women have influenced your spiritual journey? Which of your family members has impacted your faith the most?

Paul traces Timothy’s lineage through his maternal line. Conspicuous by his absence is Timothy’s father. He is not referenced in Paul’s letters and when he is mentioned in Acts he is described as a Greek (Acts 16:1). The way the text juxtaposes him with Timothy’s mother implies that he was a nonbeliever. Paul does not allude to him either because he was dead at the time of writing or more likely because he added little to Timothy’s spiritual life.

Paul, himself, stepped, into the vacuum. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) writes, “Paul was Timothy’s father insofar as he had passed the faith along to him...in the absence of any mention of Timothy’s biological father, Paul and Eunice are Timothy’s parents in faith. They shared not only their Jewish ancestry (II Timothy 1:2; Acts 16:2) but also a common Christian faith (see Titus 1:4) (Collins, I &II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 193).”

Thankfully, Timothy took after his mother. Edith Deen (1905-1994) writes, “The sublime faith of the mother and grandmother seems to have prepared the son for that greatest of all compliments, which Paul later bestowed when he called him ‘my dearly beloved son (II Timothy 1:2). (Deen, All The Women of the Bible, 238).”

How do you trace your spiritual heritage? How much of your faith is your own and how much is your culture’s or parents’? Whose faith are you enriching? Who are your spiritual sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters?

“Everyone needs to have access both to grandparents and grandchildren in order to be a full human being.” - Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Manna: Day Old Disaster

2011-12-08T15:00:00.000-08:00

Name the day old bread that was no bargain. Manna (Exodus 16:19-20)

During their 40 years wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites faced difficulties in meeting basic human needs and typically responded by groaning against their leadership. One such need was that of food and in the face of the limited supplies they cited longing for the wonderful cuisine they ate while enslaved in Egypt (Exodus 16:1-3). God met their need for sustenance through a mysterious substance known as manna (Exodus 16:4).

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction. (Exodus 16:4 NASB)

In the Old Testament worldview, dew descended from heaven (Deuteronomy 33:28; Haggai 1:10). As such, manna emerged “from heaven” with the morning dew (Exodus 16:13-14).

Manna was a mystery food, its name literally means “What is it?”. Its modern equivalent might be “whatchamacallit”. As is common when describing divine things, the Biblical writers were left to analogies to describe manna as there was no exact correlate. Manna is characterized as “a fine flake-like thing, fine as the frost on the ground” (Exodus 16:14 NASB) and “like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafers with honey” (Exodus 16:31 NASB). Manna was a wonder bread with frosted flakes.

Honey was one of the resources that made the promised land so appealing (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3) and manna can be seen as a foretaste of the Promised Land. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) explains that “describing the manna as ‘like wafers made with honey’ was tantamount to saying that it ‘was the most delicious food imaginable’ (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 384).” The bread from heaven was given to replace the distorted nostalgic view the Israelites had of their Egyptian nourishment (Exodus 16:3).

Some have seen a natural explanation for manna in that sap from a tamarisk tree native to the region that interacts with a lice plant creates a similar product. Though scientific explanations have been supplied, manna possessed the supernatural qualities of always producing the exact amount needed (Exodus 16:17-18) and having twice that amount only on the day before the Sabbath (Exodus 16:5, 22). Its name also signifies that the substance was previously unknown.

The gift of manna did come with some responsibility - God capped the manna intake. God was explicit that the Israelites gather only enough for one day with the exception of the day prior to the Sabbath (Exodus 16:4-5, 16-19). The prohibition was clearly stated and easy to comply with yet it was given in one verse and violated the next (Exodus 16:19-20). The unnamed violators quickly learned the hard way that manna did not have a long shelf life - “it bred worms and became foul” (Exodus 16:20 NASB).

What modern products have minuscule shelf lives? Was the prohibition against hoarding manna due to the perishable nature of the item or was the food’s character created for the prohibition? Why did God limit the amount of manna one could collect? Why did the people violate this law? Are the answers to the last two questions different?

Some have speculated that one of the reasons for the mandate was to spare the people from the food’s quick degeneration. In this way, it fits with similar food consumption laws (Exodus 12:10, 29:34; Deuteronomy 16:34). As God selected the food, it could have just as easily been a nonperishable item. The fact that manna miraculously endured two days when necessary (Exodus 16:5) indicates that quick decay was not one of manna’s intrinsic properties.

Others have suggested that manna taught the Israelites not to waste or hoard and to be content with subsistence. Others have reminded that the way that God supplied manna required the Israelites to work six days a week and in doing so, no one could eat without working (II Thessalonians 3:10).

Before bestowing manna, God acknowledged that the food would provide a test for the Israelites (Exodus 16:4). In providing manna on a daily basis the Israelites had to trust God for their daily bread (Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3). Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) comments, “Israel was taught that this bread came ‘morning by morning’, in God’s time, according to his plan. It could not be stored ‘just in case...’ If one came too late, it had vanished with the heat of the rising sun (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 289).”

As such, for the Israelites, food and faith were intimately related.

Do you trust God to provide your daily bread? Do you recognize that when you eat, God has provided the meal no less directly than for the Israelites in the wilderness?

“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Jesus Slept

2011-12-07T15:00:00.000-08:00

What end of the boat did Jesus sleep in? Stern (Mark 4:38)

The three Synoptic gospels all relay the famous story of Jesus calming the storm (Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25). Each gospel presents Jesus sleeping when a treacherous storm hits the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:23).

Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” (Mark 4:38 NASB)

Jesus’ humanity is on full display when the scene begins as God does not sleep (Psalm 121:3-4). It is significant that Jesus’ humanity is so prevalent when the scene begins because when it ends with him effortlessly calming the storm, his divinity takes center stage (Matthew 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25).

As is characteristic of Mark’s gospel, the evangelist provides details that the other accounts omit. In this story, Mark adds that Jesus rested his head on a pillow and that he was positioned in the vessel’s stern (Mark 4:38). C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) remarks, “It suggests the vivid remembrance of an eye-witness (Cranfield, The Gospel According To Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, 173).”

The incident is a rarity as this event marks the only instance where Jesus is said to have slept. Mark 4:38 also marks the only time the word for “cushion” (proskephalaion) appears in the New Testament. The definite article used to describe it indicates that Jesus used the only cushion on board.

Mark also documents Jesus’ location on the boat - he is in the stern, prumna (Mark 4:38; Acts 27:29, 41). In nautical jargon this means he was in the back. Robert E. Picirilli (b. 1932) explains that the stern “in a fishing boat of this type was probably a slightly elevated deck in the rear (Picirilli, The Gospel of Mark (Randall House Bible Commentary),137).”

Many have seen a strong connection between Jesus’ calming of the storm and the Jonah story, so much so that some have argued that it is a retelling. The detail of Jesus sleeping in the stern has played a role in the discussion. Rudolf Pesch (1936-2011) argued that a Galileean fishing boat would not have a stern and as such the ship in Jonah influenced the gospels. While Robert H. Gundry (b 1932) acknowledged a similar pattern in the two incidents of wind-water-boat (Jonah 1:10, 16; Mark 4:38), he refuted the notion of an exact replica based upon Jesus’ location - “Jesus goes to sleep up in the stern, not down in the hold as Jonah did (Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross: Chapters 1-8, Volume 1, p. 246).

Can you relate to this incident? When have you been exhausted and napped? What do Mark’s added details add to the story?

While Matthew notes simply that “Jesus was sleeping” (Matthew 8:24 NASB) and Luke says that Jesus “fell asleep” (Luke 8:23 NASB), Mark shows that Jesus was intentional about sleeping. He finds an isolated spot and gets comfortable with a pillow. He did not merely doze off like a grandfather at a family gathering.

The Mayo Clinic lists getting comfortable as one of their Sleep Tips: 7 Steps to Better Sleep. They advise:

Create a room that’s ideal for sleeping. Often, this means cool, dark and quiet. Consider using room-darkening shades, earplugs, a fan or other devices to create an environment that suits your needs.

Your mattress and pillow can contribute to better sleep, too. Since the features of good bedding are subjective, choose what feels most comfortable to you. If you share your bed, make sure there’s enough room for two. If you have children or pets, set limits on how often they sleep with you — or insist on separate sleeping quarters.

The details that Mark includes demonstrate that Jesus made time to rest. Do you?

Gideon: When Less is More

2011-12-05T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who cut down his army and won a great victory? Gideon (Judges 7:2-8)

During the period of the judges in the 12th century BCE, Midianite raiders attacked Israel from the eastern desert (Judges 6:4). Their advances were made during summer (Judges 6:3), near harvest time, and impoverished Israel (Judges 6:6).

With the nation in peril, Gideon reluctantly agreed to God’s request to lead the Israelites against Midian (Judges 6:11-39). Gideon called in reserve units and Israel rallied around their new commander until God informed Gideon that he had a problem - he had two many soldiers (Judges 7:1). God opted for a less is more strategy.

The army was drastically reduced through two tests (Judges 7:3-7). The first test, comparable to modern psychiatric screening and in accordance with mandates in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 20:1-8), slashed Gideon’s army from 32,000 to 10,000 (Judges 7:3). The second test, a drinking manners test which differentiated between “lappers” and “kneelers”, whittled Gideon’s army down to its final tally of 300 soldiers (Judges 7:5-7). In contrast, the Midianites were as numerous as locusts (Judges 6:5, 7:12).

Fewer numbers being beneficial is counterintuitive. Military historian Richard A. Gabriel notes that Gideon intentionally minimized his numbers from the outset. Though the Midianites had camped in Endor, land endowed to the tribe of Issachar, Gideon did not enlist Issachar. Gabriel rationalizes, “Gideon made no attempt to bring Issachar under arms. To do so would have immediately alerted the enemy. Gideon seems to have chosen to forego the additional manpower to preserve the element of surprise in mobilizing his army (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 171).”

Gabriel contends that the small army was simply strategy - “Given Gideon’s plan...the force was too large (Gabriel, 172)”. This is seen particularly in the second test that dwindled his numbers. Though its rationale is not stated many have viewed it not as arbitrary but rather as a means of choosing quality over quantity. Gabriel explains, “Gideon devised an ingenious method of selecting his best warriors for the attack...he watched the hot and thirsty soldiers drink their fill. He then chose his best soldiers...Gideon chose only the men “that lapped putting their hand to their mouth,” that is, the men who drank silently and remained vigilant with their weapons at the ready (Gabriel, 172).” As such, at the rest stop, 9700 were discharged leaving only an elite force of seasoned warriors prepared for battle.

Whatever Gideon’s reasons for preferring the smaller unit, he used his 300 wisely. He divided his soldiers into three companies (Judges 7:16), attacked at midnight which concealed the small size of his force (Judges 7:19), confused and scattered the enemy into attacking one another (Judges 7:19-20) and forced them to retreat into a convoy of waiting Israelites (Judges 7:23). Gideon ultimately executed two Midianites kings (Judges 7:24-25).

How would you have reduced Gideon’s army? When is a smaller force advantageous? Why do you think God reduced the size of Gideon’s army?

While Gideon’s smaller army was effective, a strategic explanation does not fit the theme of the text. Five separate references are made to God’s promise to save Israel through Gideon (Judges 6:36, 7:2, 7, 9, 14-15). Joseph R. Jeter (b. 1943) contends, “The story of Gideon’s victory over the Midianites is less about the battle than it is about who is to get credit for the victory (Jeter, Preaching Judges, 78-79).” God’s reduction of the army’s numbers leaves no doubts as to who won the battle. This is evident from the text’s outset:

The LORD said to Gideon, “The people who are with you are too many for Me to give Midian into their hands, for Israel would become boastful, saying, ‘My own power has delivered me.’” (Judges 7:2 NASB)

Susan Niditch (b. 1950) explains, “The outcome of the battle depends not on Israelite expertise, but upon the prowess and goodwill of the divine warrior, protector of Israel. The fewer the number of human soldiers, the greater the victory of God (Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 97).” As such, the story of Gideon is really a story about the sovereignty of God.

Are there any areas of your life where it would serve you well to incorporate a less is more approach? Where do you need to become less so that God can become greater (John 3:30)? Has God’s power ever been perfected in your weakness (II Corinthians 12:9)?

I asked God for strength, that I might achieve.
I was made weak, that I might learn humbly to obey.
I asked for health, that I might do greater things.
I was given infirmity, that I might do better things.
I asked for riches, that I might be happy.
I was given poverty, that I might be wise.
I asked for power that I might have the praise of men.
I was given weakness, that I might feel the need of God.
I asked for all things, that I might enjoy life.
I was give life, that I might enjoy all things.
I got nothing that I asked for—but got everything I had hoped for.
Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered.
I am, among all people, most richly blessed.

- The Prayer of an Unknown Confederate Soldier

Urim and Thummin: Israel's Ouija Board?

2011-12-01T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who wore the Urim and Thummin? The high priest (Leviticus 8:8)

Among the description of the high priest’s vestments are esoteric items called the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:27; Deuteronomy 33:8; I Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65). Stored in the high priest’s breastplate, these two items, presumably stones, were a means of revelation in ancient Israel that could be labeled divination or more specifically, cleromancy.

You shall put in the breastpiece of judgment the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be over Aaron’s heart when he goes in before the LORD; and Aaron shall carry the judgment of the sons of Israel over his heart before the LORD continually. (Exodus 28:30 NASB)

In all major translations, even paraphrases like The Message, Urim and Thummim are left untranslated. They were unique items with no exact modern equivalent. Little is said of the Urim and Thummim and no description is provided. This indicates that either its properties were assumed or unknown even by the Biblical writers. Peter Enns (b. 1961) surmises that “the Urim and Thummim must have predated Moses. The people must have known what they were and how they were to be used, since they simply appear...without any explanation (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 531).”

Though their etymology is uncertain, based upon their consonantal roots, Urim and Thummim have traditionally been understood as lights and perfections. In cases of guilt or innocence, Urim would represent guilt and Thummim innocense. Though they represent two separate words, they have a singular distinct meaning as one’s meaning is attached to the other, like a yin-yang. A yin can only be a yin if there is an equivalent yang.

It has been speculated that the Urim and Thummim were a divinely authorized game of chance which utilized a binary system. The phenomena would equate to a divinely endorsed coin flip. It would also function much like a Magic 8 Ball with the priest formulating questions whose answers would be limited to a scripted number of responses. An incident in which Jonathan is exposed for violating his father’s foolish oath is seen as a case study of the Urim and Thummim (I Samuel 14:40-42). Though the Urim and Thummim are not mentioned by name in the text, a binary system using stones was implemented to reduce suspects.

An alternate theory from Talmudic rabbis and corroborated by Josephus (37-100) follows the belief that Urim meant lights. This theory espouses that rays of light reflected off jewels on the breastplate, each corresponding to different letters. The sequence would spell out an answer like a modern-day Ouija board.

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) summarizes, “We have no indication from biblical material that allows us to sort among these options and understand what the Urim and Thummim looked like and how they were employed physically. What we do know is that God sometimes chose to reveal his will in this manner rather than speaking directly to the people (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 612).”

How do you determine God’s will when you do not know it? What is the modern equivalent of the Urim and Thummim? Have you ever used a game of chance to make a decision? What are the limitations of such a system?

Any binary system limits God’s options to those inputted by a human. A human’s options could all be inappropriate - “Should I murder person A or person B?” The system is only as good as the person inputting questions which may be why only the high priest was equipped with the objects.

Despite being an officially licensed product for determining God’s will, the Urim and Thummim are seldom mentioned in the Bible. Though they are referenced seven times (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:27; Deuteronomy 33:8; I Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65), there is no explicit Biblical instance where the Urim and Thummim were used to determine God’s will. They are like the bat repellant in Batman’s utility belt - it is at his disposal but it is almost never used. It appears functionally, the Urim and Thummim were ornamental in nature.

Why do you think the Urim and Thummim were used so infrequently? Were they perceived as a last alternative resort, an act of desperation?

Psalm 14: Foolish Heart

2011-11-29T15:00:00.000-08:00

What did the fool say in his heart? There is no God (Psalm 14:1)

Psalm 14 is an individual song of lament. It is repeated almost verbatim in Psalm 53 (Psalm 53:1-6) and Paul quotes the Psalm prominently in Romans (Romans 3:13-18). The song encourages the righteous in the face of prevalent wickedness. It famously begins by empathizing with God over humanity’s corruption:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:1 NASB)

The two words “there is” are supplied by translators and are not in the Hebrew text. The verse literally reads “The fool has said in his heart, ‘No God.’”

The psalmist asserts that the atheist is a fool, (Hebrew: nabal). James Luther Mays (b. 1921) explains, “In the society that this psalm describes...nabal does not mean things like dumb, inept, silly, clown, buffoon. Rather the term designates a person who decides and acts on the basis of the wrong assumption (Mays, Psalms (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching) , 81).” Psalms is part of the wisdom literature and to a book espousing wisdom there is little worse one could be than a “fool”.

In contrast, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7, 9:10). Wisdom begins and ends with a belief in God. The Bible does not set out to prove God’s existence, it operates under the assumption of it. When the Bible begins, God exists (Genesis 1:1).

Despite being deemed foolish by the Bible, atheism occurs. A 2009 study by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that 1.6% of Americans self identify as atheist. Many atheists are far from whom the world would deem foolish. In the last century, A.J. Ayer (1910–1989), Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986), Albert Camus (1913–1960), Noam Chomsky (b. 1928), Michel Foucault (1926–1984), Ayn Rand (1905–1982), Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) are just a few of the renowned philosophers who were also avowed atheists. By the Bible’s standards, these people were fools.

In your opinion, what is the most foolish thing a person can believe? Why? Is God’s existence self evident? If so, why are there so many atheists?

While the psalmist would no doubt object to the intellectual atheist, that is not what is referenced in this hymn. The song references those who make a claim in their hearts, not with their minds or lips. It is about those who profess to be believers, but whose actions (an extension of true belief) show otherwise. The song refers not to the intellectual atheist who denies the existence of God, but to the practical atheist who lives as if there were no God. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) writes, “In its main theme the psalm is a statement about ‘practical atheism.’ It reflects on one whose conduct is disordered and without focus, because it is not referred to God (Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary, 44).”

“Fool” describes everyone who has no place for God. It is not that the fool does not believe in God but rather that for the fool, God is unnecessary. John H. Eaton (b. 1927) expounds, “The ‘fool’ is everywhere – prominent persons, of hard and ruthless disposition, who act continually as though they were their own sufficient god; that they ‘say in their heart...’ means that in practice this is how they behave, irrespective of what they profess (Eaton, Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation, 93).”

The Psalmist is not lamenting the intellectual atheist but the practical one. The song mourns not for the intellectuals but for the common people. People like us.

Do you profess a belief in God? Do your attitudes reflect that belief? Is God the reference point in your life? Which is preferable, being an avowed atheist or a professing believer who behaves as if God did not exist?

“The Bible says radical things about the stream of consciousness that talks inside us: ‘Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the days’ (Genesis 6:5); ‘All his thoughts are, ‘There is no God’ (Psalm 10:4). This does not only refer to vile lifestyles. It includes the everyday ways our minds operate without reference to God. Functional atheism is our most natural state of mind.” - David Powlison (b. 1950), Speaking Truth in Love: Counsel in Community, 17-18

Aaron's Magic Rod

2011-11-28T15:00:00.000-08:00

Whose shepherd’s rod grew buds? Aaron’s

After disciplining Korah for leading a rebellion challenging Israel’s leadership (Numbers 16:1-50), God reiterated his decision for the Levites to inherit the priesthood by holding an open casting call (Numbers 17:1-5). Each of Israel’s twelve tribes submitted a personalized rod to be housed over night in the tent of meeting. The location is significant because it was “where I [God] meet with you” (Numbers 17:4 NASB). God would be making the decision as to who would lead the people and the tribe whose rod bloomed would guide the priesthood (Numbers 17:2-5).

In Israel, the rod was much more than a walking stick. It was a symbol of power and authority (Psalm 2:9, 89:32; Isaiah 10:24, 11:4; Ezekiel 20:37). Leaders would even take oaths by means of their staffs. In fact, in Hebrew the word for “staff” (matteh) is the same as “tribe” as a tribe’s chief would lead via the staff.

At God’s invitation, Aaron donated his rod to the cause and it was selected (Numbers 17:3, 8).

Now on the next day Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds and produced blossoms, and it bore ripe almonds. (Numbers 17:8 NASB)

Specifically, the rod bloomed with buds, blossoms and almonds (Numbers 17:8). Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) comments that “the text describes the stages of growth of the plant. It is not clear whether it means all these stages were present simultaneously on the rod or only that the rod went through these stages, but the former is not impossible (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 335).”

Regardless of how the buds developed, they were a miracle. Life sprung forth out of death. In the Iliad, an enraged Achilles swears an oath against Agamemnon exclaiming:

“But I will speak out to you, and will swear thereto a mighty oath: by this staff, that shall never more put forth leaves or shoots since first it left its stump among the mountains, nor shall it again grow green, for the bronze has stripped it on all sides of leaves and bark, and now the sons of the Achaeans carry it in their hands when they act as judges, those who guard the ordinances that come from Zeus; and this shall be for you a mighty oath (Homer & A.T. Murray, Iliad, Book I, 233.)”

Achilles makes an oath with a rod claiming that he will go back on his word when the staff blossoms, which to him was an impossibility. It was an ancient equivalent of “when pigs fly”. Yet in the case of Aaron’s rod, pigs did fly.

After the rod blossomed, Moses had each tribe’s representative withdraw their rod, save for Aaron’s whose was put back in the place of testimony (Numbers 17:9-11). As the heads of each tribe retrieved their own staffs, they were witness to the affirmation of Aaron’s leadership. God had intentionally drawn Aaron’s straw. The blooming staff was a tangible sign of Aaron’s selection and was preserved as such. Hebrews states that the budding rod was even one of the contents of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:4). The preserved rod was to serve as a preventive measure against further rebellion.

When has your authority been validated? Have you ever felt chosen by God? Why was a blossoming rod an appropriate sign in this situation? What sign would you have given to select the priesthood? Did Moses reimburse Aaron for the rod? Did the rod choose the owner or the owner the rod (a very bad Harry Potter reference)?

Throughout the ordeal, Aaron never defended his own honor and left the response to God.

Aaron’s rod had previously demonstrated miraculous powers by transforming into a serpent and swallowing all of Pharaoh’s magicians’s rods who coincidentally had also transformed into serpents (Exodus 7:8-12). Interestingly, both times Aaron’s rod performed supernatural feats, he was not holding it. Perhaps he had to let go of it for it to do its job.

In what areas of your life do you need to “let go and let God”?

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
- Reinhold Niehbuhr (1892-1971), “The Serenity Prayer”

Let Justice Roll Down

2011-11-24T15:00:00.000-08:00

Complete: “Let justice roll down like waters, and ________________________________________.” Righteousness like an everflowing stream [or mighty stream] (Amos 5:24)

Amos prophesied in the eighth century before Christ during the reign of Jeroboam II (II Kings 13:13, 14:16, 23, 27, 28, 29, 15:1, 8; 1 Chronicles 5:17; Hosea 1:1; Amos 1:1, 7:9, 10). One of Amos’ major themes is social justice. Even though he categorizes Israel as being unjust, he readily admits that the people have maintained an outward appearance of worship.

Amos argues against such ritualistic religion. In discussing the Day of the Lord (Amos 5:18-27), Amos informs his audience that God will not accept worship from a community that does not value justice and righteousness (Amos 5:21-23). After stating what God does not want but is receiving, Amos erupts with what God does want but is not receiving:

“But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:24 NASB)

Amos 5:24 has become a well know exhortation. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) lauds, “In one masterful stroke Amos summarizes the heart of what God requires (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah - An Exegetical Commentary, 222).”

Amos, a shepherd in his former life (Amos 1:1, 7:14), drew upon imagery he knew well - the importance of water. The prophet often draws upon the calamity of drought to illustrate his points (Amos1:2, 4:7-8, 7:4). While desert streams would often dry up Amos, like Psalms and Ezekiel (Psalms 74:15; Ezekiel 47:1-12), pictures an ever flowing stream.

Amos’s famous claim that God rejects hollow worship is a bold reiteration of Amos 5:14-15 and echoes Isaiah 1:10-17. James Luther Mays (b. 1921) summarizes: “The hatred of Yahweh against the worship of his people–that is the shock of this word. Righteousness in the courts and markets instead of liturgies and offerings in the shrines–that is the Revelation in this word (Mays, Amos: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 106).”

Simply put, God does not want worship from an unjust people. Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) reminds that God “wants worship in spirit and in truth. True worshipers of the Lord, who do worship in spirit and in truth, will bear the fruit of the Spirit in their private lives and in their public conduct. In their society, justice will flow like healing waters (Ezekiel 47:1-12) and righteousness like a perennial wadi (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 432).”

Do you behave differently in church than you do in society? What is the relationship between righteousness and justice? How do your religious beliefs directly help the most poor and needy in your community?

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), a Baptist preacher by trade, alluded to this passage in his legendary “I Have A Dream Speech”. On August 28, 1963, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, King called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. In the speech’s tenth stanza, King exclaimed, “No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Did Dr. King use Amos 5:24 properly? What groups now are as deprived of justice as African-Americans were in 1963? How is your religion helping to eliminate that injustice?

Entertaining Angels

2011-11-22T15:00:00.000-08:00

Complete: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for ___________________________________________.” Thereby some have entertained angels unawares (Hebrews 13:2)

Hebrews concludes with a series of exhortations. The first is to love one another, philadelphia (Hebrews 13:1) and is followed by a directive to show hospitality, philoxenia (Hebrews 13:2).

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2 NASB)

The text moves from loving inside of the community to demonstrating love outside its borders. The word rendered “hospitality” (philoxenia) literally means a love of strangers. The word is used only here (Hebrews 13:2) and in Romans 12:13 in the New Testament. Kathleen Norris (b. 1947) writes, “True hospitality is marked by an open response to the dignity of each and every person. Henri Nouwen has described it as receiving the stranger on his own terms, and asserts that it can be offered only by those who ‘have found the center of their lives in their own hearts’ (Norris, Dakota: A Spiritual Geography, 197).”

Hospitality was a primary virtue in the ancient world. Caring for strangers was a solemn responsibility in the Old Testament (Genesis 18:1-8, 19:1-3; Judges 19:19-21; Job 31:32) and practiced by the New Testament church (Acts 10:23, 21:16, 28:7). Hebrews’ mandate fits with Jesus’ teaching that hospitality extends to those who cannot possibly repay it (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 14:1-14).

The ancients placed special emphasis on providing lodging as inns were typically places of ill repute and travelers naturally preferred accommodation in private residences. Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) explains, “Among Jews and Gentiles alike, hospitality to strangers was highly regarded, and even considered a religious obligation. It usually involved lodging as well as food and drink (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 506).”

How would you define hospitality? Who is the most hospitable person you know? Where would you rank hospitality among the virtues?

Hebrews adds an incentive to follow this mandate with a tantalizing potentiality - in demonstrating hospitality, one might be entertaining an angel in disguise (Hebrews 13:2)! Hebrews devotes a section to the cosmic pecking order and includes that humans rank slightly lower than their angelic counterparts (Hebrews 2:5-9). In claiming that a stranger may in actuality be an angel, the author is in effect advising to treat all strangers as if they were God’s direct emissaries because they might well be. The enticement serves the same function as the fable of the king who anonymously inserted his child into the community so that each child would be treated as though they were the prince. People tend to treat someone differently whom they feel is of a superior ilk.

There was precedent for unknowingly entertaining angels. While Gideon (Judges 6:11-21), Manoah (Judges 13:3-20) and Tobit (Tobit 3:17, 5:4-16) all encountered unrecognizable angels, the most notable case is that of Abraham (Genesis 18:2-15). George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) reminds, “The supreme paradigm for hospitality in early Jewish literature was the hospitality of Abraham, shown to his heavenly visitors (Genesis 18:2-15), which is probably alluded to in Hebrews 13:2 (Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews, 435-6).”

Despite the precedence, interacting with disguised angels is a rarity, even in the Bible. With this in mind, F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) comments that the author “is not necessarily encouraging his readers to expect that those whom they entertain will turn out to be supernatural beings traveling incognito; he is assuring them that some of their visitors will prove to be true messengers of God to them, bringing a greater blessing than they receive (Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 371).”

What is the purpose of disguised angelic visits? How common do you feel this experience is? When have you been unfamiliar with someone you have entertained? Do you feel you have ever interacted with an angel? If you did, how would you know?

“Insight is better than eyesight when it comes to seeing an angel.” - Eileen Elias Freeman, The Angels’ Little Instruction Book

When Paul was Saul

2011-11-21T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who watched Stephen being stoned? Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul)

Saul, who will eventually evolve into Paul the hero of the second half of the book of Acts, makes an ignominious Biblical debut. Almost as an aside, Saul is implicated in the martyrdom of Stephen as the executioners placed their cloaks at the feet of the future apostle while carrying out their task (Acts 7:58).

When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. (Acts 7:58 NASB)

Like Barnabas (Acts 4:36) and Philip (Acts 6:5) before him, Luke introduces Paul with a cameo appearance before adding him to the main cast. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) applauds, “The introduction in the last words of the verse of a young man called Saul is a fine touch of Luke’s dramatic instinct (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 110).”

At the time of the incident, Saul was an upstart Jew and an eyewitness to the dispute between the Jewish mainstream and the new offshoot in Jerusalem. He is described as a neanias (“young man”), a term that indicates that he was “from about the 24th to the 40th year (BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 534).” Given his involvement in the stoning, it has been suggested that he belonged to the Cilician synagogue that opposed Stephen (Acts 6:9).

Saul is mentioned as the killers laid their cloaks at his feet. The Mishnah (m. Sanh. 6:3) required a stoning victim to be stripped but here it is the executors who remove their clothing. Like a pitcher removing his warm up jacket before throwing fast balls, this act was to aid them in better hurling stones.

Saul himself did not throw stones as witnesses were to play this role in executions (Deuteronomy 13:9-10, 17:7; m. Sanh. 6:4). Though Saul guarded the clothes of the executioners, he was far more than a coat check attendant. He was culpable in the action. At the very least, Saul gives approval and not just passing consent (Acts 8:1) and at worst, he supervised. Elsewhere, when Luke uses the expression “at the feet” it carries a connotation of leadership (Acts 4:35, 37). Saul likely aided and abetted in the murder of an innocent man.

This incident of Saul’s life serves as a before picture to show the dramatic change the after snapshot conveys. Saul was a villain. He will lead a systematic inquisition against the early Christian movement, not only seeking followers in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, 9:1, 21, 22:2-4, 26:10) but going door to door in foreign cities as well (Acts 9:1, 14, 21, 22:5; 26:1). After his powerful experience on the Damascus road (Acts 9:1-19), the persecutor would become the persecuted and the target of the type of attacks he once authorized (Acts 9:23-25, 29-30; II Corinthians 11:23-30).

What youthful indiscretion do you most regret? What impact did participating in Stephen’s death have on Paul’s life? Did Paul’s past as a persecutor in any way prepare him for his ministry? When reading of his later sufferings, do you ever feel bad for Paul?

Though much is made of Paul’s involvement in Stephen’s death, he was also present for Stephen’s final speech. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) surmises, “His [Stephen’s] last words were of forgiveness for his executors, and the close collocation of a reference to Saul suggests that we are meant to infer that the words had some effect on him. The reader is being prepared for what is to follow in chapter 9 (Marshall, 148).”

Perhaps Paul’s sudden conversion may not be as acute as it first appears. Perhaps God had been priming him for his experience on the Damascus road. Perhaps Paul’s ministry was a direct answer to Stephen’s prayer for his executioners.

Though Paul never mentions Stephen in his letters, he does recall the martyr in a speech in Acts (Acts 22:20). Paul never forgot his misguided past. Years later, he lamented that “I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (I Corinthians 15:9 NASB).”

How much impact did his brief encounter with Stephen have on Paul? If it was meaningful, why did Paul never write of it? Has a brief encounter ever left a lasting imprint on your life?

“Sometimes the people whom we’ve know for only a short amount of time have a bigger impact on us than those we’ve known forever.” - Maya Angelou (b. 1928)

Reflecting on a Starry Night

2011-11-17T15:00:00.000-08:00

Complete: “When I look at the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained, _________________________________________” What is man that thou art mindful of him? (Psalm 8:3, 4a)

Psalm 8 is a psalm of David which glorifies God the Creator. It is the first hymn of praise in the psalter. It is also the only psalm that is constructed entirely as a direct address to God.

In Psalm 8, the writer engages in star gazing. Like most humans have been at one time or another, the psalmist is overwhelmed by the grandeur of creation.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him? (Psalm 8:3-4 NASB)

Viewing the magnificence of the creation led the psalmist to consider its Creator. Artur Weiser (1893-1978) comments, “Behind the glorious splendour of the brilliant sky his mind’s eye envisages him who has created that splendour. It is for him, for the Divine Creator, that his song is intended; his first and last thought is directed to the glory of God and to the praise of God (Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 140).”

Next to a seemingly endless creation, any single human, even a king, feels insignificant. The psalmist asks how a God so big can care about something so small. The assumption underlying the psalmist’s question is that God, the creator of the universe, does indeed care for him. Nancy L. deClaissé–Walford (b. 1954) comments, “Psalm 8 certainly contrasts the sovereignty of God with the earthiness of humanity, but the two are inextricably connected (deClaissé–Walford, Introduction to the Psalms: A Song from Ancient Israel, 69).”

When has admiring God’s creation led your thoughts to the Creator? Why does the God of the universe care for you? Do you think the celestial beings serve only as a backdrop to life on earth to remind us of our finitude or are there other reasons for it?

The Psalmist did not have all of the scientific data we do today to realize the scope of what he saw. He did not realize the sun was merely the closest of over one billion stars and 109 times bigger than Earth. He did not realize that the moon was a satellite of the earth, ¼ of its size. He did not realize that earth was merely the third of nine planets in our solar system. Yet, even without these facts, he realized he was small. Very small. And that God was very big, at the very least bigger than creation.

Though modern humans know more about outer space than the Psalmist, he knew enough to realize that the God of the universe cared for him. Do you?

When have you felt insignificant? Do you remember that the creator of the universe cares for you (Psalm 8:4, I Peter 5:7)?

“Saint Augustine said that Jesus loved each person he ever met as if there were no else in all the world to love, and he loved all as he loved each. I have never known which aspect of Jesus is more incredible, his capacity for individual affection or the amazing inclusiveness of his love.” - John R. Claypool (1930-2005), The First to Follow: The Apostles of Jesus, 1

John 21: A Fish Story

2011-11-15T15:00:00.000-08:00

How many fish did the disciples catch when Jesus told them to put their nets in again? 153 (John 21:11)

After his resurrection, Jesus manifested while seven of his disciples were fishing on the Sea of Tiberius a.k.a. Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-3). It had already been a long day and the experienced fisherman had come up empty (John 21:3). Jesus, whose identity was concealed from the disciples, instructed his charges to cast their nets on the right side of their boat (John 21:6). The disciples complied and the action resulted in the recognition of Jesus (John 21:7) and a massive haul of 153 fish (John 21:11).

Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. (John 21:11, NASB)

The odd detail of 153 fish is so precise that it has long fascinated commentators. It is the only time the number appears in the Bible. Many have followed the logic of C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) who wrote that “the number is significant or it would not have been recorded; it is improbable that it represents the fortuitous but precise recollection of an eye witness (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 581).”

For many, the detail is simply too specific to be insignificant. Some suggest that it indicates that the author was present for the catch. Others have gone to great lengths to find meaning in the number itself. Here are a few examples:

While commenting on Ezekiel 47, Jerome (347-420) claimed that the Greeks had identified exactly 153 species of fish in the sea (Commentary Ezekiel, PL 25:474C). This would make the fish the symbolic equivalent of the holistic and diverse nature of the salvation Jesus offered (Revelation 5:9). Not only has modern science obviously debunked the claim itself but it appears the remark was never valid. Jerome cites the naturalist writer Oppian but there is no evidence that Oppian ever made the assertion. In contrast, Pliny (23-79) stated that there were 74 varieties of fish (Burge, John: The NIV Application Commentary, 585). At the very least, the belief that there were 153 species of fish was never widespread.
In the 19th century, Lt. Col. R. Roberts calculated exactly 153 individuals who were specifically blessed by Jesus in the four canonical gospels (E. W. Bullinger. (1837-1913), Number in Scripture, 276.)
The mathematician Archimedes (287-212 B.C.E.), in his treatise On the Measurement of the Cycle, used the whole number ratio 153:265 to accurately approximate the irrational ratio square root of 3, “the measure of the fish”. As such, 153 was known from the time of Archimedes as “the measure of the fish” or the vesica.
Many have looked to the number’s unique properties and its connection to the number 17 for inspiration. Gregory the Great (540-604) found meaning in the fact that 153 was the result of 17 multiplied by 3 and again by 3 (17x3²). Augustine of Hippo (354-430) adds that 153 is the triangular of 17 (Tract. Ev. Jo.122.8). This means that it is the sum of the integers from 1 to 17 inclusive. This number can be expressed as a triangle. 153 also has the rare property that it is the sum of the cubes of its own digits (i.e. 153 = 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3). It cannot be denied that 153 is a unique number but how does it relate to the text?
Others have found meaning in gematria, a system by which numerical value is assigned to a word or phrase. Amazingly, the words “fish” and “Simon” (a fisher of men) equate to 153 in Greek. In Hebrew, “church of love” also adds to 153. In 1958, John Adney (J.A.) Emerton (b. 1928) suggested that the gematria correlated to Ezekiel 47 which predicts that it “will come about that fishermen will stand beside it; from Engedi to Eneglaim there will be a place for the spreading of nets. Their fish will be according to their kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea, very many (Ezekiel 47:10 NASB).” Engedi has a numeric value of 17 and Eneglaim 153 (Emerton, JTS 9 (1958) 86-89).
A more advanced (or convoluted depending upon your perspective) version of combining math and the Bible was developed in 1975 called theomatics which was based upon gematria and isopsephia. Theomatically, fish related items have a numeric value based on the number 153. For example, “fishes” (153 x 8), “the net” (153 x 8), “multitude of fishes” (153 x 8 x 2), and “fishers of men” (153 x 14) all have numeric values divisible by 153.

The discussion of the significance of 153 is interesting if not always plausible. While some theories are certainly fishier than others, one thing is for certain: The disciples caught a miraculous number of fish.

Who took the time to count the fish? Do you think the specific number 153 has meaning? Why? Why not?

The story of the miraculous catch in John (John 21:1-11) is often juxtaposed with a similar fish story at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry presented in Luke’s gospel (Luke 5:1-11). In Luke, the disciples’ net breaks and the fish are lost (Luke 5:6). In John, after studying at the feet of the master, they are able to bring in and count the fish (John 21:11) - those perplexing 153 fish.

If there is meaning to the number, it cannot be said with any certainty. D. A. Carson (b. 1946) summarizes that “if the Evangelist has some symbolism in mind connected with the number 153, he has hidden it well (Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 673).”

Perhaps the simplest explanation is the best - the disciples caught 153 fish and were so impressed that they counted the haul. Leon Morris (1914-2006) reminds, “Fishermen..have always loved to preserve the details of unusual catches (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 764).”

Have you ever been fishing? If you caught 100+ fish in one day, would you count them? What is your best fish story?

“Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.” - Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Deborah: The Right Man for The Job

2011-11-14T15:00:00.000-08:00

Who was the only woman to judge Israel? Deborah.

After the conquest of Israel, charismatic leaders or “judges” periodically surfaced to lead Israel. Deborah is the book’s third major judge, emerging at a time when Israel was experiencing a spiritual and moral decline (Judges 4:1-5:31). She is also described as a prophetess (Judges 4:4) who held court beneath a palm tree (Judges 4:5).

Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. (Judges 4:4-5 NASB)

Deborah’s tenure was a success that resulted in forty years of peace (Judges 5:31). The apex of her rule was convincing Barak to lead a successful counterattack against the forces of Jabin king of Canaan and his military commander Sisera (Judges 4:6-24). This contingent had wreaked havoc on Israel for twenty years (Judges 4:2-3).

Susan Niditch (b. 1950) explains, “Deborah is a prophet, that is, one capable of mediating between God and human beings, and is perceived of having gifts of divination and charisma. She is a conduit to God, a vessel for divine communications of various kinds. It is this inspired oracular gift that allows her to “judge” leading on and off the battlefield (Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 65).”

The only other background detail that the text provides is that Deborah was the “wife of Lappidoth” (Judges 4:4 NASB). In Hebrew, this can also be read “woman of fire” or “woman of torches”. Douglas A. Knight (b. 1943) and Amy-Jill Levine (b. 1956) expound, “The Hebrew for ‘wife of Lappidoth,’ eshet lapidot, can also be translated ‘woman of flames.’ The words for ‘wife of’ and ‘woman of’ are the same, and there is no Mr. Lappidoth featured in the text. Nor is there any fellow named Lappidoth found elsewhere in the Bible (Knight and Levine, The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us). This interpretation also provides a word play as Deborah is the torch that sets general Barak (whose name means “lightning”) on fire. J. Clinton McCann (b. 1951) states succinctly, “Deborah as ‘Torch Lady’ would be quite appropriate (McCann, Judges (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 52).”

Have you ever seen anyone who arose at the right time to lead a previously divided people? Do you think that Deborah’s gender played a role in Barak’s hesitation to follow her advice? How significant is her gender to her story?

Deborah was the only woman to serve in the capacity as “judge”, which at the time equated to the highest public office in the land. Her gender is stressed throughout. Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) explains:

Both the story and the song emphasize the fact that Deborah is a woman. The story tells us that she was a prophetess-woman, adding the word “woman,” ishah, when the female noun “prophetess,” nebi'ah, already conveys that information. She is called “Lapidot”-woman or Lapidot’s woman, again repeating the word “woman,” eshet...And the song stresses that Deborah was a “mother in Israel.” The femaleness is neither hidden nor incidental: it is an integral part of the story. The motherhood of this “mother in Israel” goes beyond biology. It describes her role as counselor during the days before the war, and it indicates her role in preserving the heritage of Israel, in her case by advising in battle. (Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible)

As Frymer-Kensky alludes, Deborah describes herself as “mother to Israel” (Judges 5:7 NASB). Deborah not only does not conceal her femininity, but stresses it. For her, it is an asset, not a detriment to her ability to lead.

Are there times when a woman is not only adequate to lead but better suited? During what circumstances? Could you vote for a woman president? If a woman was equipped and appointed to lead Israel, God’s people, can a woman lead a church, also God’s people?

Moses' Race

2011-11-11T15:00:00.000-08:00

Where was Moses’ father-in-law a priest? Midian (Exodus 18:1)

Moses lived 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7). His life can be divided neatly into three forty year increments: living in Egypt (Exodus 2:5-10; Acts 7:23), living in Midian (Exodus 2:15-22; Acts 7:30), and wandering in the wilderness whilst leading the Hebrews (Exodus 7:7; Acts 7:36).

Moses began life in Pharaoh’s court, having been adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:5-10). After years, presumably raised as an Egyptian in Egypt’s royal family, he began to feel empathy for his native Hebrews and impetuously murdered an Egyptian taskmaster (Exodus 2:11-14).

Wanted for murder, Moses fled Egypt and spent his exile in relative obscurity in Midian (Exodus 2:15). Midian was one of Abraham’s sons from his second marriage (Genesis 25:2, 4). It was in Midian that Moses’ life was most “normal”. He married the priest’s daughter, Zipporah, and had two children (Exodus 2:21-22, 18:2-4).

Though Moses likely felt his life would end in Midian, at the age of eighty God called him into service and back to Egypt to evacuate his people.

Did Moses’ time in Midian prepare him for his life’s calling of leading the Exodus? How important is having a clear cut nationality? How do you define yourself in terms of ethnicity and nationality? How do you feel Moses would have described his ethnicity and nationality? Would it have varied at different junctures?

At no point in his life did Moses ever live with his own countrymen in a land they owned or even possessed a permanent dwelling. He was perpetually a stranger in a strange land. Moses answering the question of where he was from would likely have resembled modern answers of children born to missionaries and military personnel who have traveled the globe never really having lived amongst their ancestors’ people.

Further complicating matters is the fact that Moses’ own Hebrew culture had not yet developed its ethnicity. In his provocatively titled book Moses the Egyptian, Jan Assmann (b. 1938) writes, “What we would today call their ‘ethnicity’ or ‘cultural identity,’ which would set the Israelites apart from their Egyptian host culture, did not yet exist because the construction of this identity was precisely the function of the Law (Assmanm, 70).” And the Law had yet to be written.

This does not mean that Hebrews did not recognize themselves as being unique. Moses’ biggest criticism from his family came ostensibly because of his wife. While scholars are divided as to whether this wife was Zipporah or a second wife, Moses’ siblings were alarmed in part because he had married a “Cushite” (Numbers 12:1-2). (For my more detailed analysis of this story, read this previous post.) God intervened in the matter and sided with Moses (Numbers 12:4-9).

Whether or not Moses’ wife’s nationality was the real issue, it cannot be denied that Moses married someone whom his siblings designated as “other”. It is perhaps not surprising, that Moses, who never quite seemed to have a home, seemingly had no problems marrying someone so different from himself.

What is your stance on interracial relationships? Why do you believe as you do? How do you think your own heritage has influenced your views on the matter?

“I hope that people will finally come to realize that there is only one 'race' - the human race - and that we are all members of it.” - Margaret Atwood (b. 1939)

Esther 8:9: The Bible's Longest Verse

2011-11-08T15:00:00.000-08:00

What is the longest verse in the Bible? Esther 8:9 (85 words)

Though the Bible had been divided into sections for centuries, the chapters and verses that are in modern Bibles were not separated until the 16th century. Robert Estienne (1503-1559) was the first to print a Bible that was broken into standard numbered verses. His New Testament was first printed in 1551 and a Hebrew Bible followed in 1571.

Of the Bible’s 31,173 verses, Esther 8:9 is the longest in most all English translations. Esther 8:9 reads:

So the king’s scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language. (Esther 8:9 NASB)

The verse consists of 43 Hebrew words, making it the longest verse in the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text as well. Significantly longer versions of I Samuel 11 were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Though not canonical, several verses of I Samuel 11 from these sources surpass Esther 8:9 in length.

In English, Esther 8:9 is significantly longer than its original Hebrew, typically spanning between 70-90 words. In the King James Version (KJV) it consists of 90 words as compared to 86 (ASV), 81 (NASB) and 80 (ESV) in other prominent word-for-word translations. In thought-for-translations, the text is cleaned up and reduced further. For instance, Esther 8:9 is comprised of 71 words in the NIV and cut down to 55 in the CEV.

Though you have likely never read a Bible that was not divided into verses, the concept of doing so has always faced some criticism.

Do you like the division of the Bible into verses? Why might it not be a good idea?

Esther 8:9-12 is a reversal of Esther 3:12-15 which features a report of the genocidal edict that Haman issued through the authority of King Ahasuerus. It is a turning point in Esther but is not especially significant to the Bible as a whole. Likewise, Revelation 20:4, the longest verse in the New Testament (68 words in the KJV) is also of no particular note.

As such, the length of a verse is not is not as significant as its depth. There are times where, as Dr. Seuss (1904-1991) advises, “Shorth is better than length.”

What do you feel is the most important verse in the Bible? What verses do you feel have far more depth than length? Do you know of anyone whose depth of life exceeded its length?

“It is not length of life, but depth of life.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)