Rod in the Box (Hebrews 9:4)

Whose rod was kept in the gold covered chest, the Ark of the Covenant? Aaron’s rod

Hebrews is a self described “word of exhortation” to early Christians (Hebrews 13:22). In its ninth chapter, the imperfect earthly sanctuary is contrasted with its perfect heavenly counterpart to display the obvious superiority of the latter (Hebrews 9:1-12).

In making this argument, Hebrews depicts the earthly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1-5). Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) describes:

In this very inventive passage, the Preacher takes the congregation on a guided tour of the old desert tabernacle, the first sanctuary of Israel under the old covenant (the Preacher’s narration is not absolutely precise, but it roughly follows the description of the design and furnishings of the tabernacle woven through Exodus 25-40). The Preacher even takes the congregation where they would not have been allowed to go: into the very inner sanctum, the Holy of Holies. (Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 93)

While recounting the furnishings of the holy of holies, Hebrews mentions three items enclosed in the ark of the covenant: a jar of manna, Aaron’s rod and the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Hebrews 9:4).

Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; (Hebrews 9:3-4 NASB)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) teaches:

The “ark of the covenant”...is a box or chest (kibōton) that is also called by the Septuagint the kibōtos martyriou (“ark of the testimony”) (Exodus 25:10). Exodus 25:16 says simply that Moses is to put into the ark “testimonies” (ta martyria) that I will give you.” The term means “evidences,” and the author elaborates three such concrete pieces of evidence for God’s presence among the people—only one of which Exodus itself specifies, namely “the tables of the covenant” (see Deuteronomy 10:1-5; I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10) given to Moses from the hand of God (Deuteronomy 9:9-10). The other two items were also signs of God’s presence and protection. The miraculous manna (Exodus 16:31) fed the people in the wilderness, and some of it was preserved in a jar (Exodus 16:32-34) that the Septuagint characterizes as “golden” (Exodus 16:33; see also Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], Preliminary Studies 100). Moses was told to place the jar “before God,” but not specifically in the ark. The flowering rod of Aaron was equally a sign of “evidence” of God’s protection, through the selection of Aaron as the one whom God wanted to approach the tent of testimony, and put an end to the murmuring of the people (Numbers 17:16-26). Once more, Moses is instructed to place the rod before the testimony “as a sign for the sons of rebellion” (Numbers 17:25), though not in the ark, as Hebrews has it. (Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 220)

David L. Allen (b. 1957) adds:

The “ark of the covenant” is described in the Greek text with a perfect tense participle “covered around,” an adverb meaning “on (from) all sides” and the dative “with gold.” William L. Lane (1931-1999) and the NIV both translate this Greek phrase as “gold-covered,” a descriptive phrase that gets at the meaning, but as J. Harold Greenlee [b. 1918] noted, such an attributive rendering violates Greek grammar. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 461)

This passage marks the last of three references to Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, in Hebrews (Hebrews 5:4, 7:11, 9:4). It also represents the only reference to Aaron’s “rod” (ASV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “staff” (ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT) in the New Testament (Hebrews 9:4).

Aaron’s rod was a sacred object which originally symbolized his tribe’s selection as the nation’s priests (Numbers 17:1-11). Alan C. Mitchell (b. 1948) recounts:

The budding rod of Aaron, according to Numbers 17:1-9, was placed by Moses in the Holy of Holies. Twelve staffs with the names of the heads of the tribes were to be placed in the sanctuary, before the Lord. Aaron’s name was to be inscribed on the staff of Levi. When Moses returned the next day he saw that Aaron’s rod had sprouted a flower. This indicated that he was chosen by God for the priesthood, which was supposed to be a warning to rebels and to put an end to complaints. God instructed Moses to place his rod in the sanctuary before the covenant, but not in the ark itself. (Mitchell, Hebrews (Sacra Pagina), 175)

The inclusion of Aaron’s rod in the ark of the covenant is not referenced in the Old Testament. While the Ten Commandments are said to be placed in the ark (Exodus 25:16; Deuteronomy 10:2), the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod’s are not. At the dedication of the temple it is definitively stated that the tablets are the only items situated inside the ark (I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10).

David A. deSilva (b. 1967) notes:

The contents of the ark are not explicitly described in the Pentateuch save for the two tablets of stone containing the ten commandments (Deuteronomy 10:2; I Kings 8:9). The jar of manna (Exodus 16:32-34) and Aaron’s rod...(Numbers 17:10) were to be placed within the inner sanctum as a perpetual “testimony,” but the author of Hebrews actually has them stored within the ark (suggested perhaps by Exodus 18:21: “in the ark you shall put the testimony that I will give you.”). (deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “To the Hebrews”, 297-298)

Not only does the Old Testament fail to mention that the manna and the rod are not fixed in the ark of the covenant but this detail is also absent from rabbinic literature. Paul Ellingworth (b. 1931) acknowledges:

Rabbinic tradition, which in other respects goes beyond scripture in describing the contents of the ark, is more faithful to the Exodus text than Hebrews at this point in locating the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, not in but beside the ark...These details appear to have no independent significance for the author; he does not, for example, relate the gift of manna to Israel’s status as a wandering people. (Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 428)

In the Old Testament, the manna and Aaron’s rod were deemed sacred objects but were to be placed in front of the ark, not in it. It has been argued that Hebrews is indicating as such. David L. Allen (b. 1957) reveals:

The location of the jar of manna and the staff “in” the ark is problematic when compared to both the Hebrew and Septuagint texts of Exodus 16:33 and Numbers 17:10...In the Hebrew text, the same preposition lipnê, “in front of” or “before” is used to describe the location of the jar as before “the Lord” and the rod as in front of “the testimony.” The question is whether the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were placed inside the ark or in front of the ark. The linguistic ambiguity of the preposition lipnê in the Old Testament texts above can be interpreted either way. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 461-62)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) rejects:

According to Exodus 16:33ff Moses commanded Aaron to put an omer of manna (about four pints, one-tenth of an ephah) in a jar, “and place it before Yahweh, to be kept throughout your generations”; and Aaron accordingly “placed it before the testimony, to be kept.” Similarly, when twelve rods or sceptres, one for each tribe of Israel, had been laid up “in the tent of meeting before the testimony,” Aaron’s rod, the rod of the tribe of Levi, was found the next day to have put forth buds, blossoms, and ripe almonds—a token that Aaron was the man whom God had chosen for the priesthood (Numbers 17:1-10). Moses was then directed to “put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels” (Numbers 17:10). Does the phrase “before the testimony” imply that these objects were placed inside the ark, or simply that they were laid in front of it? Franz Delitzch [1813-1890] thinks that the former “is a natural conclusion” from the phrases “before Yahweh” and “before the testimony”; this is by no means clear, especially as regards the phrase “before Yahweh,” for this phrase is used of other installations in the tabernacle, which were certainly not inside the ark. On the other hand, it will not do to say that the antecedent of “wherein” is not “the ark” but “the tent called the holy of holies” (Hebrews 9:3); this puts an intolerable strain on the natural construction of the sentence by the distance which it places between the relative and its antecedent. It is not to be doubted that our author represents the jar of manna and the rod as having been inside the ark along with the tables of the law. (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 203)

William L. Lane (1931-1999) relays:

The statement that the ark contained, in addition to the stone tablets of the covenant, the golden jar of manna and Aaron’s rod that blossomed, it is not attested elsewhere...According to all of the texts and versions known of the Old Testament, only the tablets of the covenant were actually placed within the ark (Exodus 25:16, 21; Deuteronomy 10:1-2; cf. I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10). Johannes van der Ploeg [1909-2004] (Revue Biblique 54 [1947] 219) suggested that the writer adopted a tradition according to which subsequently other objects were placed within the ark, a tradition presupposed in certain strands of rabbinic evidence (cf. Bava Batra 14a; Tosefta Yoma 3.7; ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 41 [67a]). (Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (Word Biblical Commentary), 221)

These additional items could have fit in the ark but would likely have filled it. Joseph Ponessa (b. 1948) and Laurie Watson Manhardt (b. 1950) measure:

Exodus gives the dimensions 3.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits, or 45 x 27 x 27 inches, just large enough to hold “a golden urn holding manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. (Ponessa and Manhardt, Moses and the Torah (Come and See Catholic Bible Study), 97)

In surveying the Holy of Holies, Hebrews positions three sacred items into one sacred object. The ark of the covenant and the holy of holies where it is housed are truly sacred. Yet they pale in comparison to the future sanctuary (Hebrews 9:11-12).

Should the manna and the rod have been placed into the ark of the covenant? Who do you think did so and when? Is the ark magnified in any way by the inclusion of these items? Does placing the manna and the rod in the ark, where the items would be unseen, detract from their purpose to serve as a “testimony”? Is there anything you cherish that you conceal or hide? What objects are sacred to you? What do the ark’s contents mean individually and collectively?

The three items housed by the ark and the ark itself are tangible monuments of Israel’s connection to God. All of these objects come from the same period in Israel’s history, the formative period of the Exodus. Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) assigns:

The ark contained three treasures. “The gold jar of manna” (Exodus 16:32-34) was a reminder of God’s faithful provision during the wilderness wanderings. Aaron’s staff that has budded (Numbers 17:1-11) reminded readers of God’s powerful warnings against complaint and faultfinding. The stone tablets of the covenant (Exodus 25:21-22) reminded them of God’s expectations, and pointed...to the ministry of Christ. (Lea, Hebrews & James (Holman New Testament Commentary), 167)

Gareth Lee Cockerill (b. 1944) condenses:

If the Ten Commandments were the foundation of God’s covenant, manna was evidence of his provision, and the rod symbolized his choice of Aaron as priest. (Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 378)

There may be a more significant reason for Hebrews’ allusion to Aaron’s rod. Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) conjectures:

The reference to Aaron’s rod may be seen to have special importance, given the argument of chapter 7 [Hebrews 7:1-28]. The budding rod demonstrated the sole legitimacy of Aaron and the tribe of Levi in priestly service at the altar (cf. Numbers 18:7). But that uniqueness has now been displaced—indeed canceled—by the high priest of the order of Melchizedek. (Hagner, Hebrews (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 132)

In including the symbol of Aaron’s priesthood among the items that pales in comparison to Jesus’ priesthood (Hebrews 4:14-15, 5:6), Hebrews may be reiterating its point that Jesus is far superior to his predecessors. In comparison to Jesus, the old signs lose a little luster.

Do the ark of the covenant, the tablets containing the ten commandments, the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod still hold meaning? If so, what is it? What is the effect of Jesus on their significance? What are the tangible monuments to Jesus’ life? What serves as a “testimony” to your faith?

“If you’d rather live surrounded by pristine objects than by the traces of happy memories, stay focused on tangible things. Otherwise, stop fixating on stuff you can touch and start caring about stuff that touches you. - Martha Beck (b. 1962)

The (S)Word of God (Hebrews 4:12)

Which book describes the Word of God as a “two-edged sword”? Hebrews (Hebrews 4:12)

A long persuasive segment of Hebrews (Hebrews 3:1-4:11) famously concludes with a poem which powerfully affirms God’s word (Hebrews 4:12-13). Harold W. Attridge (b. 1946) calls the brief hymn “a rhapsody on God’s penetrating word” (Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), 46).”

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 NASB)

Though compared to a sword, the destructive power of God’s word is not being emphasized.

God’s word is described as being alive. David L. Allen (b. 1957) documents:

The use of zon (“living”) to qualify “word” implies personality. Nowhere else in Hebrews in this word used to describe non-personal life, but it is used four times of God, twice of Jesus, and five times of human life. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 286)

God’s word is also active. Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) denotes, “The Greek word here is energēs, from which we get our word energy. The Bible is high-voltage. It has the unlimited energy of God behind it and will not return to Him void (Isaiah 55:11). (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 76).”

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) agrees:

The word is “active” in the sense that it speeds to fulfill the purpose for which it has been uttered: this self-fulfilling character which it possesses is well summed up in Isaiah 55:11 where the God of Israel says of “my word...that goes forth from my mouth”: “it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 112)

Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) records:

This dynamic understanding of the word of God is in line with the witness of the Old Testament itself, and was familiar in contemporary Judaism. The word of God was regularly thought of as the effective means of God’s creative and judging activity, and was occasionally personified. The instrument by which the word was delivered, that is, the tongue, was occasionally depicted under the image of a sword. In Wisdom of Solomon 18:14-16 the word of God is personified as a warrior who bears the sharp sword of God’s decrees of judgment on the Egyptians at the exodus. There are verbal links with Philo, who exploits the imagery in his own way by finding, among other things, allegorical references to the Logos as a ‘cutter’. (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 174)

The word of God is compared to a specific type of sword. There are two primary Greek terms used for sword and this one, machaira, is the smaller variety, more akin to a dagger (pictured).

Paul Ellingworth (b. 1931) distinguishes:

The use of μάραιρα (Hebrews 11:34, 37) raises two questions: (1) the type of weapon referred to, and (2) the associations of the term, particularly in metaphorical expressions such as this. In classical and modern Greek alike, ῥομφαια is a large sword while μάραιρα is a knife or sabre (cf. modern Greek μάραιρα, a stab). The distinction virtually disappears in the LXX (see, e.g., Ezekiel 5:1ff.), where both terms are frequent and most commonly translate hereb (in Genesis 11:6, 10 μάραιρα of a sacrificial knife; cf. Josephus [37-100] Antiquities 6. 190 [9.5]). In I Maccabees 4:6; II Maccabees 5:13, μάραιρα must mean “sword”; in Joshua 5:2 “knife,” as perhaps in Luke 22:38...In the New Testament, μάραιρα, is more common than ῥομφαια but there is considerable overlap of meaning: both terms are associated with divine judgment (μάραιρα, Revelation 13:10; ῥομφαια, Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 16), with judicial violence of persecution (μάραιρα, Mark 14:43, 47ff; Acts 12:2; Romans 8:35; Hebrews 11:34, 37; Revelation 6:4, 13:14; ῥομφαια, Revelation 6:8), and, as in the present verse, with the word of God (μάραιρα, Ephesians 6:17; ῥομφαια Revelation 19:15, 21). Sacrificial associations have been suggested for μάραιρα in Luke 22:38, as certainly in Genesis 22:6, 10, but in the present context the meaning is rather that of God’s power, through his word, to examine, to judge, and if necessary to destroy the guilt. The image of a knife is more appropriate to the idea of probing, which is directly expressed in the text; the traditional translation “sword” expresses the underlying thought of divine judgment. (Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 262)

With this precision in mind, The Message paraphrases,“His powerful Word is sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, cutting through everything, whether doubt or defense, laying us open to listen and obey (Hebrews 4:12 MSG).”

Calvin Miller (b. 1936) recounts:

The Roman infantry used the machaira as its main battle sword. It was not a long, imposing weapon. In fact, it was a very short sword whose double-edged blade extended only about 18 inches. The enemies of Rome must have felt amused when they first saw these world conquerors and empire builders advancing into battle with such miniaturized weapons. But they changed their minds quickly once they saw how effectively the sword served in battle. Rome’s legionaries could chop up all their opponents at close range. The Romans carved an empire out of a barbaric world with an eighteen-inch blade...In a similar way, the sword of God’s Word is our machaira, God’s answer to life’s smothering entanglements. (Miller, Loving God Up Close: Rekindling Your Relationship with the Holy Spirit, 84)

Equating the word of God to a sword is not unique to Hebrews. George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) explains:

Elsewhere in the New Testament, authors associate the sword imagery with the word of God. For example, in Ephesians 6:17 the word of God is referred to as “the sword of the spirit”; in Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 19:15 the “sharp sword” proceeds from the mouth of the Son of Man, a symbol of the dynamic, spoken word of judgment. In Hebrews 4:12-13 the word is a sharp sword of discernment, which penetrates the darkest corners of human existence. (Guthrie, Hebrews (The NIV Application Commentary, 155-156)

James W. Thompson (b. 1942) adds:

The “two-edged sword” is an instrument for battle (cf. Judges 3:16) that was used metaphorically in a variety of contexts (cf. Psalm 149:6; Proverbs 5:4; Revelation 1:16). The sword is a common metaphor for God’s judgment in the Bible and Jewish literature (Deuteronomy 32:41; Psalm 17:13; Isaiah 27:1, 34:5, 66:16; Matthew 10:34; Ephesians 6:17). According to apocalyptic literature, God comes with the sword of judgment (I Enoch 88.2; Revelation 1:16, 2:16, 19:15, 21). (Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 87)

The most prominent reference aligning word and sword occurs in the description of the “the whole armor of God” (Ephesians 6:10-17). Though the same Greek term for sword is used in both passages, the meaning in Hebrews 4:12 is decidedly different.

Woodrow Kroll (b. 1944) explains:

Hebrews 4:12 contains one of the most powerful ideas about the effectiveness of God’s Word in a person’s life. Based on Ephesians 6:17, we often call the Bible “the sword of the Spirit” as part of the spiritual armor with which God equips the believer. As a sword, God’s Word is a weapon in spiritual warfare. But the passage in Hebrews 4 highlights a different purpose of God’s Word...The context shifts from the sword of the Spirit as a weapon in external conflict to a tool God uses in His internal work in our lives. (Kroll, Hebrews: Our Superior Savior (Back to the Bible Study Guides), 30)

The sword cuts deep. Hebrews affirms the word’s ability to penetrate through the surface to the inner, spiritual reality. Marie E. Isaacs deciphers:

In Hebrews 4:12 “spirit and soul,” “joints and marrow,” and “thoughts and intentions” function not as pairs of opposites but as synonyms. In hellenistic Jewish writings, soul (psychē) and spirit (pneuma) could be used interchangeably...Here the three pairs conjure up the idea of what is ostensibly indivisible. God’s word has the ability to bring judgment even to the seemingly impenetrable. (Isaacs, Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 67)

Gordon R. Lewis (b. 1926) and Bruce A. Demarest (b. 1935) concur:

Hebrews 4:12...makes no metaphysical distinction between soul and spirit. Rather the text reflects a literary technique in which the author used four pairs of quasi-synonyms to stress the all-inclusive power of the Word in a person’s life. (Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology, 141)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) rhapsodizes:

In time-honored homiletical fashion, the Preacher caps the three points of his sermon-within-a-sermon with a poem, a hymnlike tribute to the power of God’s word (Hebrews 4:12-13). Sharper than any earthly two-edged sword, the speech of God knifes through the curtain between heaven and earth, piercing into the depths of humanity, exposing to view the secret “intentions of the heart.” This sword is so sharp that it can separate even “the soul from the spirit,” dividing between what really matters and what seems to matter. No one can hide from this speech act of God; the word of God unveils every human life, laid bare before the eyes of God. The word of God takes an ordinary day and makes it “today,” takes an ordinary moment and makes it the time of crisis and decision, takes a routine event and makes it the theater of the glory of God, takes an ordinary life and calls it to holiness. (Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 61)

Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) agrees, processing:

First, it pierces, cutting through the excuses we give, the rationalizations we manufacture and the barriers we raise. Second, the Word of God is able to judge, exposing the truth about our innermost thoughts and motivations and leaving nothing in our lives untouched. Zane Hodges [1932-2008] writes, “The inner life of a Christian is often a strange mixture of motivations both genuinely spiritual and completely human. It takes a supernaturally discerning agent such as the Word of God to sort these out and to expose what is of the flesh.” (Swindoll, Living on the Ragged Edge Workbook: Finding Joy in a World Gone Mad)

John Piper (b. 1946) concludes:

What is the point in saying that the “word of God” pierces to the “division of soul and spirit”? The point is that it’s the Word of God that reveals to us our true selves. Are we spiritual or are we natural? Are we born of God and spiritually alive, or are we deceiving ourselves and spiritually dead? Are the “thoughts and intentions of our hearts” spiritual thoughts and intentions or only natural thoughts and intentions? Only the “word of God” can “judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” as Hebrews 4:12 says. (Piper, Pierced by the Word: Thirty-One Meditations for Your Soul, 23)

How have you experienced the word of God as living and active in your life? Do you view the machaira as an offensive or defensive weapon? What is the world’s sharpest sword? Is there a better analogy for the word of God than a sword ? What is meant by the “word of God”? Is the expression limited to the Bible?

Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) archives:

Considerable debate has occurred concerning the meaning of the term “the word of God” in Hebrews 4:12. The majority of patristic writers and commentators up to the Reformation period took it as referring to Christ as the Word logos of God. But elsewhere in Hebrews we find no indication that the author held to a logos Christology similar to that of the prologue to the Gospel of John. Furthermore, on this interpretation Jesus would be likened to a sword, which is rather odd...A second popular interpretation equates “word of God” with Scripture, meaning the Old Testament. Inasmuch as God speaks to us in Scripture, this interpretation is not wrong, but it is only a secondary meaning. Our author is thinking primarily of God’s direct speech to the heart, and the present statement was probably inspired by his repeated reference to hearing God’s voice in the preceding verses (Hebrews 3:7, 15, 16, 4:2, 7). The Israelites had no access to Scripture, yet they heard the word of God. (Hagner, Encountering the Book of Hebrews: An Exposition, 76)

Archbishop Dmitri Royster (1923-2011) argues there is little difference between interpreting the word of God as Jesus himself and broader readings:

Some modern interpreters seem to avoid identifying this logos with the Logos or Son of God, preferring to see it as a reference to the whole body of revealed truth, and there are some of the Fathers who understand it as both...In any event, the “Word of God” and His word are intimately united, because when God speaks to man in the New Covenant as He did in the Old, it is by means of His Son, His Word. (Royster, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary, 65)

D. Stephen Long (b. 1960) advises not to place limitations on the “word of God”:

Anyone who would confine its meaning to the original material conditions of its production (the author, the original autograph, the concrete people who first heard and received it), would neglect the ongoing material conditions that make Scripture to be Scripture: those who preserve it, continue to receive it as holy, and seek to hear it, repeating its words in nonidentical situations. This is what matters most. (Long, Hebrews: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 79)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) resolves:

When Hebrews speaks of the “word of God” (logos tou theou) as “living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting to the division between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, able to discern the thoughts and conceptions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12), it clearly means more than Scripture. It means God: “there is no creature that is not visible to him. All things like naked and exposed to his eyes” (Hebrews 4:13)...Nevertheless, that “word of God” does speak powerfully through Scripture, through God’s son, and now powerfully through the work of the Holy Spirit among them. (Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 46)

How do you define “the word of God”? Does God speak today? Is God’s communication with contemporary believers less “God’s word” than Scripture?

“We must allow the Word of God to confront us, to disturb our security, to undermine our complacency and to overthrow our patterns of thought and behavior.” - John R.W. Stott (1921-2011), Authentic Christianity, p. 105

Entertaining Angels (Hebrews 13:2)

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 (1932-1996) 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 (b. 1947), The Angels’ Little Instruction Book

Paul on Paper (Romans-Titus)

Who wrote more books of the New Testament than anyone else? Apostle Paul

Paul is credited with writing 13 of the New Testament’s 27 books (48.15%). The books attributed to Paul are Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians. Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus and Philemon. As such, Paul is responsible for 32,407 of the New Testament’s 138,020 words (23.48%). (It is worth noting that Luke/Acts accounts for 37,392 words, more than all of Paul’s writings combined.)

These numbers do not include the book of Hebrews, though the King James Version heads the book “The Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews.” Stanley B. Morrow (b. 1931) critiques succinctly “The title..is rather inaccurate: it is not an ‘epistle,’ nor is it by Paul, nor is it ‘to the Hebrews.’ (Marrow, Paul: His Letters and His Theology, 1986, 50.)”

Though his letters have been influential for centuries, Paul may have not seen his writing as one of the primary aspects of his ministry. In the biographical account of Paul recorded in Acts, not once is he ever seen writing.

The Corinthians evidently recognized a difference between Paul’s writing and his preaching. Paul writes, “Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! (II Corinthians 10:1 NASB)” Paul’s tone indicates that he feels the Corinthians would rather read him than hear him.

Have you ever performed a secondary task which turned out to be more important than what you saw as your primary function? Do you think Paul thought his writing would be his legacy? Have you ever met anyone who projected far better on paper than in person? Do you “sound” differently when you write than when you speak?

Given his impact on the New Testament canon and his influence on the early Christian movement, critics have speculated that modern Christians follow Paul more than Jesus. New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann (b. 1946) even wrote a book titled Paul: The Founder of Christianity (2002).

Who shaped the trajectory of Christianity more, Jesus or Paul? Whose model does your church more closely follow, Jesus’ or Paul’s?

Apollos: Talk Like An Egyptian (Acts 18:24)

Who is specifically mentioned as coming from the city of Alexandria? Apollos (Acts 18:24)

Apollos was a leader in the early Christian movement who is referenced ten times in the New Testament, twice in the book of Acts and eight times in the letters of Paul (Acts 18:24, 19:1; I Corinthians 1:12, 3:4, 5, 6, 22, 4:6, 16:12; Titus 3:13). He influenced the Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:12) and served with Paul in Ephesus (Acts 18:24; I Corinthians 16:12).

The most descriptive picture of Apollos comes from his introduction in the book of Acts:

Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:24-26 NASB)

Apollos makes an abrupt entrance and immediately enters into doctrinal disputes at the synagogue. From his designation as an “eloquent man”(aner logios) to being described as “mighty” (dunatos), Acts leave know doubt that Apollos’ strength was his rhetorical skills.

Despite being remembered most as a great orator, not one of Apollos’ words remains in Scripture. He may have been remembered more for how well he spoke than for what he actually said. Maya Angelou (b. 1928) said, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Who is the best preacher you have heard (other than me, of course)? What made them great? How did they make you feel?

Apollos is the only Biblical character said to be from Alexandria, Egypt (Acts 18:24). This detail has led many to speculate that he was the anonymous author of Hebrews. The Epistle to the Hebrews is better described as a long exhortation or even a sermon (Hebrews 13:22). The first to posit the theory that Apollos was the preacher who delivered it was the great reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546 ,Sermons 6.167). As this selection fits with many aspects of modern scholarship that developed centuries later, Luther’s hypothesis has been deemed a lucky guess.

Though there is not a lot of data regarding Apollos, it is suggestive and fits all of the assumptions that scholars have deduced about Hebrews’ author. It has been assumed that the author was highly educated, probably formally trained in rhetoric, as the Greek is the most sophisticated in vocabulary and style of any book in the New Testament. It has also been assumed that the writer was a powerful preacher whose style could be differentiated from Paul’s (I Corinthians 1:12). As Hebrews sets to establish Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises, especially Psalm 110, it has been concluded that the author was also well versed in the Scriptures. Apollos fits all of these assumptions (Acts 18:24-26).

For the many who support Apollos as the book’s author, his connection to Alexandria is the telltale fact. It has been surmised that the Hebrews penman did not speak or write in Aramaic or Hebrew due to the extensive use of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was composed in Alexandria.

More strikingly, many have seen Alexandrian theology as having shaped Hebrews. Alexandria, with its exhaustive library, was one of the academic capitols of the ancient world. It was known as a center for Platonic philosophical studies. Many have found that the theology of Hebrews mirrors its Alexandrian predecessor, Philo Judaeus (20-50), and successor, Clement (150-250). Even the literary style of Hebrews is comparable to Philo. Harold W. Attridge (b. 1946) concludes: “...there are undeniable parallels that suggest that Philo and our author (of Hebrews) are indebted to similar traditions of Greek-speaking and -thinking Judaism (Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), 29).”

Given the evidence, many scholars have jumped on Luther’s bandwagon and supported his brilliant guess. Even so, the conclusion is not unanimous. While Hebrews contains strong similarities with Alexandrian thought, some scholarship has seen the divergences to be equally great (David L. Allen (b. 1957), Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, 44). In his foundational study, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1970), Ronald Williamson even argues against the influence of Platonism. The biggest complaint, however, against Apollos penning the work is that no early tradition argued for it, not even the Alexandrian school (Pantaenus [d. 200], Clement [150-215], Origen [184-253], Dionysius [d. 265], Athanasius [296-373]).

We will never know for certain who wrote Hebrews. Later Alexandrian scholar Origen (184-253) famously wrote “But as to who actually wrote the epistle, God knows the truth of the matter (Eusebius [263-339], Historia Ecclesiastica, 6.25.11-14).”

Despite the argument being inconclusive, it is telling that one of the primary supporting factors for Apollos having written Hebrews is the place of his birth. It is assumed that our own place of origin impacts our theology.

How does the area you in which you were raised affect your religious beliefs? Were you born elsewhere, how difficult would it be for you to believe as you do? Are you sensitive to this factor when presenting your views to others with different backgrounds?