The Power of the Tongue (Proverbs 18:21)

Complete this Proverb: “Death and life are in the power of __________.” The tongue (Proverbs 18:21)

A well-known children’s verse asserts that “sticks and stones may break my bones/but names will never hurt me.” The book of Proverbs rejects this conventional wisdom, asserting that the tongue carries power, the power of life and death (Proverbs 18:21).

Death and life are in the power of the tongue,
And those who love it will eat its fruit. (Proverbs 18:21 NASB)

The power of words is a common theme in the book of Proverbs. Kathleen A. Farmer (b. 1943) tracks:

A number of sayings (including several editorial clusters) are concerned with wise and foolish ways of using human powers of communication. Fully, a third of the sayings in chapters 10, 12, and 26 are related to this topic. The sayings acknowledge that “death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21), that “a soft tongue will break a bone” (Proverbs 25:15), that “the lips of the wise will preserve them” (Proverbs 14:3), and that the speech of the “worthless” is “like a scorching fire” (Proverbs 16:27). Thus, the originators of these sayings endorse a viewpoint shared by many of their counterparts in other cultures. For instance in the Instruction of Ani an Egyptian sage says, “A man may fall to ruin because of his tongue” (vii.7-11; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 420), and in the Elephantine texts the Assyrian scribe Ahiqar says, “More than all watchfulness watch thy mouth...For a word is a bird: once released no one can recapture it,” and “Soft is the tongue of a king, but it breaks a dragon’s ribs” (The Words of Ahiqar vii.98, 105b-106; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 428-29). This same attitude is echoed in a later era by a New Testament author: “The tongue is a little member and boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small [tongue of] fire!”(James 3:5-8). (Farmer, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes: Who Knows What is Good? (International Theological Commentary), 84)

The potency of words is of particular interest in the book’s eighteenth chapter (Proverbs 18:1-24). Leo G. Perdue (b. 1946) explores:

Language is once again a common theme in this chapter of the second subdivision [Proverbs 18:1-24]. The recognition of the power of speech that creates and destroys life is reaffirmed: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits” (Proverbs 18:21). A proper answer following careful hearing and moral reflection is emphasized by the sages: “The poor use entreaties, but the rich answer roughly” (Proverbs 18:23, see Proverbs 18:13, 15, 20). The depth of human speech that often escapes simple understanding is underscored in the saying “The words of the mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a gushing stream” (Proverbs 18:4). It is only through wisdom, as moral reflection and careful thought, that understanding is obtained. By contrast, fools misuse language to their and others’ detriment: “A fool’s lips bring strife, and a fool’s mouth invites a flogging” (Proverbs 18:6, see Proverbs 18:7, 13). The abuse of language in the words of a whisperer misshapes his or her character (Proverbs 18:8). (Perdue, Proverbs (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 183-84)

Christopher B. Ansberry (b. 1980) concurs:

The thematic movement between the sub-collections is also evident with respect to their treatment of communication. Solomon 1B [Proverbs 16:1-22:16] reinforces various dialogical principles presented in the Proverbs 10-15. Several aphorisms describe the individual and communal implications of proper and improper speech (e.g., Proverbs 16:28, 30, 17:20, 18:7; cf. Proverbs 10:11, 21, 11:19, 13:2, 14:3). Other sayings highlight the inherent power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21; cf. Proverbs 12:18, 25), the forensic significance of dishonest speech (Proverbs 19:5, 9, 28, 21:28; cf. Proverbs 12:17, 14:5, 25), the effects of descriptive discourse (Proverbs 17:4, 7, 19:22, 21:6; cf. Proverbs 10:18, 12:19, 14:5, 25), and the value of silence (Proverbs 17:27, 28, 21:23; cf. Proverbs 10:19, 11:12, 13:3). These principles receive comparable attention in each sub-collection. (Ansberry, Be Wise, My Son, and Make My Heart Glad: An Exploration of the Courtly Nature of the Book of Proverbs, 108-09)

Proverbs 18:21 and its predecessor (Proverbs 18:20) form a two-verse cluster. Dave Bland (b. 1953) connects:

This proverb pair [Proverbs 18:20-21] describes the power of the organs of speech: mouth, lips, and tongue (see Proverbs 10:18-21). (Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs (College Press NIV Commentary), 172)

The aphorisms are joined by a thematic buzzword: fruit. Christine R. Yoder (b. 1968) bridges:

The word “fruit” frames the...two proverbs [Proverbs 18:20-21]; it is the first word of Proverbs 18:20 and the last of Proverbs 18:21. Just as gossip is like delicious morsels that descend into the body’s innermost parts (Proverbs 18:8), speech—whether positive or negative—is like fruit and harvest (“yield”) that fills the bellies of speaker and hearer alike. (Yoder, Proverbs (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 200)

Knut Martin Heim (b. 1963) contextualizes:

Proverbs 18:20-21 introduce[s] a new sub-unit on the use of speech. They may still relate to the legal context of the preceding unit, although their application is much broader. Special attention has been given to their composition, as the many linking features,...daring metaphors and the almost paradoxical imagery demonstrate. Together, they vigorously challenge the untutored to learn the proper use of his “tongue”, for this ability will bring him immense profit to the point that it can save his life and/or enhance his life-style, while lack of eloquence may actually be perilous. (Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, 251)

Proverbs 18:21 is the lens through which Proverbs 18:20 is best interpreted. Derek Kidner (1913-2008) apprises:

The second of this pair of proverbs [Proverbs 18:20-21], with its warning to the talkative, throws a sobering light on the first. Both of them urge caution, for satisfied (Proverbs 18:20) can mean ‘sated’: the meaning, good or bad, will depend on the care taken. James Moffatt [1870-1944] paraphrases Proverbs 18:20 well, but one-sidedly: ‘A man must answer for his utterances, and take the consequences of his words.’ W.O.E. Oesterley [1860-1950] quotes the witty saying of Ahikar: “My son, sweeten thy tongue, and make savoury the opening of thy mouth; for the tail of a dog gives him bread, and his mouth gets him blows.’ (Kidner, Proverbs (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 130)

The proverb’s first clause affirms the tongue’s power (Proverbs 18:21a). Bruce K. Waltke (b.1930) informs:

Of the tongue is another common metonymy for good or bad in this book (Proverbs 10:20, 12:18, 15:2, 4 versus Proverbs 12:19, 17:4, 20), complementing “mouth” and “lip” in the proverb pair. And adds the parallel that qualifies verset A. (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 86)

Riad Aziz Kassis expounds:

The tongue is viewed in Proverbs as the organ which expresses thoughts. A good tongue is regarded highly in Proverbs. The tongue is נבחר כםך (Proverbs 10:20) and as מרסא (Proverbs 12:18) and חיים (Proverbs 18:21; cf. Proverbs 15:4). Such descriptions suggest that speech does not consist of mere words spoken ‘in the air’, but has a powerful effect in life. Words are intended actions. The value of the tongue is seen in the fruits of good speech which bring satisfaction to both individual and community (Proverbs 12:14, 13:2, 18:20. (Kassis, The Book of Proverbs and Arabic Proverbial Works, 117)

Mark Driscoll (b. 1970) and Gerry Breshears (b. 1947) apply:

In many ways, the tongue is an indicator of the heart, because Jesus said, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks [Matthew 12:34].” The disciple of Jesus learns to speak under the discipline of the Holy Spirit, who enables him or her to speak truthfully in love in a manner that is appropriate for both the hearer and for Jesus, who is listening to our words. The key is to get our time listening to God through his Word so that when we do speak, we echo Jesus with loving words. (Driscoll and Breshears, Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods, 202)

Death and life are in the “power” of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21). Though most translations render the Hebrew yâd with its figurative meaning “power” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or omit it (CEV, MSG, NLT), the word literally means “hand”.

Christine R. Yoder (b. 1968) clarifies:

Life and death are “in the hand of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21a); “hand” may refer to a person’s power, much as the English expression “The matter is in your hands” means you have control over it (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:36; Joshua 8:20). The tongue or speech one “loves” determines one’s fate, just as the choice between wisdom and folly has life and death consequences (Proverbs 1-9, see especially wisdom’s “fruit,” Proverbs 8:19; cf. Proverbs 31:31). (Yoder, Proverbs (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 200-01)

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) relays:

“Are in the hand of the tongue.” James G. Williams [b. 1936] (1980:47) sees this as an allusion to Lady Wisdom: “The tongue is like a woman who offers fruit to her friends.” See the image in Proverbs 8:19. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (The Anchor Bible), 645)

Speech carries life and death implications. Similar consequences are relayed in Proverbs 13:3, 21:23. Roland Murphy (1917-2002) comments:

The significance of speech is intensified by the reference to death and life. Since these are particularly the domain of the Lord, there is a strong affirmation of “the power (literally ‘hand’) of the tongue.” Does this refer to the speaker or those he addresses? Perhaps both. There is a similar proverb in Sirach 37:18 concerning the power of the tongue over life and death. It is not clear what “it” in “love it” refers to. It seems to be the tongue and so would refer to the possibility of talking foolishly or wisely. This would seem to include the alternative of life/death. (Murphy, Proverbs (Word Biblical Commentary))

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) affirms:

Speech has the power to give and preserve life and well-being and to bring death and destruction, both to the speaker (Proverbs 12:6b, 13a, 13:2a, 3, 18:7) and to others (Proverbs 10:11a, 11:9a, 12:6a, 13a, 18). Radaq [1160-1235] says that slander kills three people: its speaker, its listener, and its victim. Paired with Proverbs 19:29, however, Proverbs 18:21 concerns particularly its impact on the speaker. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (The Anchor Bible), 645)

Bruce K. Waltke (b.1930) bounds:

The merism death and life (see Proverbs 2:18, 19, 5;5, 6, 8:35, 36, 12:28, 13:14, 14:27, 16:14, 15) comprehends all manner of weal and woe. Speech effects more than clinical death and life. The merism speaks of relationship within community or the lack of it. The deadly tongue disrupts community and by its lethal power isolates its owner from community and kills him. The life-giving tongue creates community and by its vitality gives it possessor the full enjoyment of the abundant life within the community. (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 86)

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) condenses:

Death is the end of the road for those who use their speech to hurt others. (Longman, How to Read Proverbs, 153)

While the proverb’s opening line is relatively straightforward, its second clause is problematic: “those who love it will eat its fruit” (Proverbs 18:21 NASB). Among the challenges facing the interpreter are identifying the undefined “those”, “it” and “fruit”.

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) theorizes:

The referent of “it” must be “the tongue,” i.e., what the tongue says. So those who enjoy talking, i.e. indulging in it, must bear its fruit. The Midrash mentions this point, showing one way it can cause death: “The evil tongue slays three, the slanderer, the slandered, and the listener” (Midrash Tehillim 52:2; see further James G. Williams [b. 1936], “The Power of Form: A Study of Biblical Proverbs,” Semeia 17 [1980]” 35-38). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Proverbs~Isaiah (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 164)

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) agrees:

Those tho love it [feminine]: Namely, the tongue. Those who cherish fine speech and hold it in respect will (as the preceding verse says) enjoy its fruit...Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890] wonders if the (feminine) antecedent of “it” refers to wisdom, which is the usual object of love in Proverbs, but the word is not available in the context. Since one does not actually love the tongue, Richard J. Clifford [b. 1934] identifies the antecedent of “it” (feminine singular) as “life” (masculine plural) or “death” (masculine singular) and translates “those who choose one shall eat its fruit.” But though it is true that a feminine singular pronoun can have a vague plurality as its antecedent, it cannot have a disjunctive antecedent (either-or), especially when neither of the antecedents agrees grammatically with the pronoun. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (The Anchor Bible), 645)

The use of “love” is also noteworthy. Robert Alter (b. 1935) interjects:

The choice of the verb “love” is revealing in regard to the underlying attitude toward language. A cultivated person delights in language and takes pleasure in its apt use, and this exercise of well-considered expression will redound to his profit. In this fashion, the ethic of articulate speech in Proverbs mirrors the form of the proverbs themselves, which, at least in intention, are finely honed articulations of wisdom, often exhibiting concise wit. (Alter, The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary, 272)

Some have contended that “those who love it” refers to loquacious people (Proverbs 18:21). Bruce K. Waltke (b.1930) interprets:

Those who love it (i.e., “the tongue” [=speech]; see Proverbs 1:22) designates people who “are in love with language; they use it fastidiously, they search for chaste expression and precise meaning, and they have an end in view which they will reach because they know what language is for and how it can best be used to achieve its purpose.” Their objective may be good (i.e., producing life; cf. Proverbs 4:6, 8:17, 12:1, 13:24, 16:13, 22:11, 29:3) or bad (i.e., producing death; cf. Proverbs 1:11, 8:36, 17:19, 20:13, 21:17). (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 86)

Knut Martin Heim (b. 1963) educates:

The participle of אהב, “to love” denotes a continuous activity. The expression “to love the tongue” does not refer to someone who likes to talk a lot. Rather, it denotes the positive character who diligently improves his oral skills and knows how to employ them wisely, be it by saying the right thing at the right time or by remaining quiet when appropriate. (Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, 251)

Another vague term which must be defined is “fruit”. Duane A. Garrett (b. 1953) investigates:

Some scholars take “fruit” to refer to consequences, good or evil, that follow upon one’s words. An alternative view is that “fruit” here is good fruit as opposed to barrenness. The meaning would be that speech is powerful and the wise use it economically in order to achieve the intended result. Through the careful choice of words, their language is fruitful...In my view neither is satisfactory. On the one hand, the statement that people are satisfied with the fruit (Proverbs 18:20) excludes the view that good or bad consequences are in view. No one is satisfied with something that does not have its intended effect. On the other hand, not all fruit is good, as the text implies in speaking of tongues’ having the power of death, a destructive force (Proverbs 18:21)...Rather, Proverbs 18:20 asserts that people have a sense of self-satisfaction about their own words. To put it another way, they delight in airing their own opinions. And yet the tongue can be highly dangerous. The purpose of these verses is to warn against being too much in love with one’s own words. One should recognize the power of words and use them with restraint. Voicing one’s views, here ironically described as eating the fruit of the tongue, can be an addictive habit with dangerous results. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 166-67)

Bruce K. Waltke (b.1930) deciphers:

On its own this proverb could refer to eating (i.e., taking into one’s being) the speech of others, buts its close connection with Proverbs 18:20 suggests that it continues the oxymoron of eating the consequences in an exact correspondence to the way one speaks (cf. Proverbs 13:3, 15:23, 21:23). By placing in the outer core of its chiastic synthetic parallels word-initial “death and life” (Proverbs 18:21a) and word-final “fruit (Proverbs 18:21b), the proverb clarifies and intensifies the metaphor of “fruit” in Proverbs 18:20. Its inner core, matching “in the power of the tongue” with “those who love it,” clarifies that for the speech to effect life or death one must earnestly desire to speak, to pursue it, and to stick with it. This commitment to speech precedes the rewards of Proverbs 18:20, as eating precedes being filled. (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 86)

Some have inferred courtroom implications. Kathleen A. Farmer (b. 1943) envisions:

Perjury (giving a false testimony) under such a system brings about a failure in justice: “A worthless witness mocks at justice” (Proverbs 19:28). The story in I Kings 21:1-29 (about Naboth’s vineyard) illustrates the lethal power lying witnesses can have. The saying that attributes the power of life and death to the tongue (Proverbs 18:21) may be most appropriately quoted in this legal setting. (Farmer, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes: Who Knows What is Good? (International Theological Commentary), 86-87)

Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (1954) construe the aphorism in terms of advice:

Proper advice has a wide effect on the society and on the individual who offers it. The development of such advice takes discipline and devotion. One has to love it in order to do it. If one does it well, then one can do well and be successful. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 184)

Others have seen a spiritual principle involved: inner vows become reality or in the words of Michael Jackson (1958-2009), “the lie becomes the truth”. D.J. Jewels exemplifies:

What we say has everything to do with what comes about in our lives. If we constantly talk death, eventually that will happen and you stop any kind of life from enveloping your being. If we talk life, on the other hand, we will bring that life into our being...If we can get a real understanding of this concept, we will begin to use what we say to our advantage instead of disadvantage...You attract life when you speak life and living into your being and you attract death when you do not. (Jewels, God’s Original Law of Attraction)

In a more mainstream outlet, Joel Osteen (b. 1963) quotes Proverbs 18:21 three times in his book, Your Words Hold a Miracle. He implores:

You can change your world by changing your words, and specifically by agreeing with and speaking the Word of God. (Osteen , Your Words Hold a Miracle: The Power of Speaking God’s Word)

While the verse’s particulars are debated, its main thrust is not: Words are influential. John Chrystostom (347-407), whose eloquence garnered him his surname which means “Golden Mouth”, preaches:

Christ makes the same point when he says, “By your own words you will be condemned, and by your words you will be justified” [Matthew 12:37]...The tongue stands in the middle ready for either use; you are its master. So also does a sword lie in the middle; if you use it against the enemy, it becomes an instrument for your safety; if you use it to wound yourself, it is not the steel but your own transgression of the law that causes your death. Let us think of the tongue in the same way, as a sword lying in the middle. Sharpen it to accuse yourself of your own sins, but do not use it to wound your brother...Hence, God has surrounded the tongue with a double wall—with the barrier of the teeth and the fence of the lips—in order that it may not easily and heedlessly utter words it should not speak. BAPTISMAL INSTRUCTIONS 9.33-35. (J. Robert Wright [b. 1936], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 123)

Ellen F. Davis (b. 1950) considers:

The first verse [Proverbs 18:20], taken by itself, could be read as a purely utilitarian statement: a good command of words puts food on the table. So I recently heard a patent attorney comment that his business is “selling words.” Such a utilitarian view of speaking is very common among us; words are widely regarded as marketable commodities. Politicians and advertisers are eager to find words that will sell but rarely feel morally bound by what they have said. A presidential press secretary, confronted with a clear contradiction in his remarks, observed that the earlier statement was “inoperative.” It is telling that he chose a word that comes from the world of machinery. One might say that we have become a culture of “word processors.” We rapidly produce words and delete them, hoping they will disappear without a trace from human memory, as they do from a computer screen...But the second verse [Proverbs 18:21] shows how inadequate is that mechanistic understanding of speech. The fruit-bearing tongue is a living source of nourishment, delight, sustenance. “A healing tongue is a tree of life” (Proverbs 15:4)...But words can destroy as well as heal: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” [Proverbs 18:21] That proverb is the opposite pole from our own: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” On the contrary, the biblical perception is that words are powerful bearers of intention, for good and for ill. In speaking, we imitate God, who once spoke the world into being. Serving God requires that our words further the intentions first expressed in God’s own purposeful word (Isaiah 55:11)...The widespread degradation of words in our culture point to the need to highlight the clear biblical witness in this matter, if the church is itself to be a center of godly speech that gives life to its members. Within the New Testament, the letter of James, whose thought at many points echoes that of the sages, names an undisclosed tongue as “a fire...a world of iniquity” (James 3:6). One contemporary theologian issues a profound and imaginative challenge to the church: to recognize itself as a “guild of philogians,” literally “word-lovers.” He challenges us, not to be better Scrabble players, but to engage in “that word-caring, that meticulous and conscientious concern for the quality of conversation and the truthfulness of memory, which is the first casualty of sin” (Nicholas Lash [b. 1934], “Ministry of the Word,” 476). Truthful words, backed up with our lives, are all that we offer God in worship. Caring words are often all that we have to offer one another, the best salve that we have for healing wounds, the best mortar we have for building up the whole body of the church. (Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion), 112-13)

William Mouser (b. 1947) compresses:

Our words possess an awesome power for evil, but they also have an awesome power for good. For all that, words are not magic. Their power lies not so much in themselves as it does in the characters of those who speak them and those who hear them. (Mouser, Proverbs: Learning to Live Wisely, 36)

Actions may speak louder than words, but words are laced with power. All who have a tongue must remain aware of the power with which they are endowed. Like a puppy who must learn that its bite hurts, we must train ourselves in speech. Proverbs challenges us to hone these skills.

How would you restate Proverbs 18:21? Why is it true? Does the proverb take its own advice; are its word’s wisely chosen? How beneficial is being eloquent? Do you value words? What steps are you taking to improve your oratory skills? When have your words been used for good? For evil?

History is filled with examples which validate the proverb’s truth. Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) notes:

Never underestimate the power of words. For every word in Adolf Hitler [1889-1945]’s book Mein Kampf, 125 people died in World War II. Solomon was right: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). No wonder James compared the tongue to a destroying fire, a dangerous beast, and a deadly poison (James 3:5-8). Speech is a matter of life or death. (Wiersbe, Proverbs, Be Skillful: God’s Guidebook to Wise Living, 133)

Woodrow Kroll (b. 1944) illustrates:

It’s naïve to think that our words don’t have an influence on others around us...Even offhand comments, like the one a reviewer made about “Richard’s chubby sister,” can have devastating results. When Richard’s sister, singer Karen Carpenter [1950-1983], heard this comment, she became so obsessed with losing weight that she soon became anorexic and died of heart failure when she was only 32...A story like that may be the exception rather than the rule, but we’ve all experienced the hurt that can come with someone else’s words. (Kroll, Proverbs: The Pursuit of God’s Wisdom, 83)

Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. (b. 1949) adds:

The tongue can kill—literally. I heard about a woman in Los Angeles who took her own life. All she wrote in her suicide note was this: “They said.” In his suicide note, Vince Foster [1945-1993] of the Clinton White House wrote of Washington, “Here ruining people is considered sport.” “Death [is]...in the power of the tongue.” That is why Jesus said, “On the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36). Words do not even have to be intentional to be deadly; they can be careless. (Ortlund, Proverbs: Wisdom that Works (Preaching the Word))

Our own tongues may not produce such dire consequences but they have great effect. The death blow our tongue deals is often to those closest to us. Chip Ingram (b. 1954) cautions:

Recognize the power of your words. The Scriptures say that there is life and death in the power of words (see Proverbs 18:21). What comes out of your mouth literally has the power to make or break a person’s day—or ruin his life. Especially if that person is younger. Especially if that person looks up to you. Especially if you are married to that person. (Ingram, The Miracle of Life Change: How God Transforms His Children, 226-27)

Given their significance, the sage’s words imply invoking caution before speaking. Knut Martin Heim (b. 1963) discerns:

The second saying presents him with a crucial choice: life or death [Proverbs 18:21]. By choosing to cultivate his eloquence through hard work, he will gain security and improve his standing...As Raymond C. Van Leeuwen [b. 1948] has observed, “Proverbs 18:21 plays on the feminine grammatical gender of ‘tongue’ to give the saying an erotic tinge...and to turn the hearer’s thought to the powerful ambiguity of love, either for wisdom and life, or folly and death. This connection with the themes of Proverbs 1-9 is heightened by the following saying, in which love of wife parallels love of Lady Wisdom.” (Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, 251)

Thankfully, the tongue’s power can also be used for the ultimate good. J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) formulates:

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue”—think of that! Your tongue can be used to give out the gospel, and this will give life. It can also be used to say things that would drive people away from God which makes it an instrument of death. The little tongue is the most potent weapon in this world. (McGee, Proverbs (Thru the Bible Commentary Series), 161)

Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) assents:

Stop and consider this: “Faith comes from hearing” only when words have communicated the right message, the right way, at the right time (Romans 10:17). God gave humanity the responsibility to carry out His evangelistic, redemptive plan for the world, and we have a solemn responsibility to use words...to accomplish his great command. (Swindoll, Living the Proverbs: Insights for the Daily Grind, 25)

Words can be used for good or evil. The choice is ours.

Which is more powerful, the spoken or written word? Why? Do you exercise restraint in your speech? What is the most good your words have produced? What is the most harm? When have you used your tongue to share the gospel?

“The tongue like a sharp knife, kills without drawing blood.” - Chinese proverb commonly misattributed to the Buddha

Lazarus’ Four Missing Days (John 11:17)

Whom did Jesus raise from the dead after he had been dead for four days? Lazarus.

Not counting his own resurrection, Jesus raises three people from the dead: Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9:18–26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40–56), the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11:1-45). The latter is typically the most remembered. Lazarus is the only person raised who is named and his story represents the climactic sign of Jesus’ ministry in John’s gospel. In addition, unlike the other resurrection accounts, Lazarus has been buried and gone for a significant period of time — four days to be exact (John 11:17, 39).

So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. (John 11:17 NASB)

To heighten the sense of drama, John includes that Lazarus’ ever pragmatic sister, Martha, tries to dissuade Jesus from entering the tomb based upon the macabre reality of her brother’s stench after four days (John 11:39)!

That Lazarus’ resurrection in John is more stirring than the comparable stories in the Synoptic gospels is not surprising and historical critics have long read the story with skepticism. Alan J. Torrance (b. 1956) appraises:

The Lazarus story constitutes the most spectacular — if not stupendous — of the miracle accounts in the four Gospels. Presented as a piece of historical reporting, the story has a counterintuitive ring to it. Unparalleled in significant respects by any of the Synoptic miracle accounts and certainly uncorroborated by them, what reads as a carefully crafted story of the reanimation of a decaying corpse takes some believing. It...comes from a writer who appears to exaggerate miracle accounts. His blind man is not just blind but blind from birth [John 9:1], his lame man is not just lame but lame for thirty-seven years [John 5:5]. Lazarus is not just dead but seriously dead! John Cleese [b. 1939]’s famous parrot sketch comes to mind: “Dead for four days? How dead can you get!” (Richard Bauckham [b. 1946] and Carl Mosser [b. 1972], “The Lazarus Narrative, Theological History, and Historical Probability”, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, 247)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) counters:

What makes the reanimation of Lazarus...notable is the length of time he has been dead (at least four days – John 11:17, 39; his body presumably would have begun to decay!). Of course, if one comes to these texts already convinced that resurrections are under no circumstances possible, no amount of evidence will persuade one of historicity...Others find themselves unable to believe that the Synoptics would have omitted such a story if it actually happened. (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 165)

Ironically, the evangelist’s intent in denoting the four days is to leave no doubts that Lazarus has indeed died. In fact, timing is emphasized throughout John’s account of Lazarus (John 11:1-45). Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) notes:

The Lazarus story makes several references to time—two days (John 11:6), twelve hours (John11:9), four days (John 11:39), that year (John 11:49, 51), that day (John 11:53)—and together they reinforce the idea of God’s plan having its due time and of the need for being ready to meet him. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 389)

Four days is not a common biblical time span (Judges 11:40; I Samuel 27:7; John 11:17, 39; Acts 10:30) but here it is significant. Many have presumed that the story reflects a commonly held Jewish belief that a person’s spirit remains near her body for three days after death only to depart when putrefaction becomes evident. The spirit is then obligated to depart to Sheol, the place of the dead.

In Israel’s climate, burial was not delayed as evidenced by the account of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:6, 10). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) comments:

Burial was on the day of death. It was followed by a week of mourning. In popular Jewish belief the human spirit hovered near the body for three days, then departed as the color of the corpse began to change. Normally death would be irrevocable and all hope abandoned for one buried four days (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 12:6; Leviticus Rabbah 18:1). The problem is acute (cf. John 5:5: paralyzed for thirty-eight years; John 9:1: blind from birth). (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, 177)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) adds:

This note is significant. There was a well-known Jewish belief (attested from about A.D. 200) that the soul of a dead person remained in the vicinity of the body “hoping to reenter it” for three days, but once decomposition set in, the soul departed. Similarly, the Mishnah says that in judicial cases deceased persons can only be identified for up to three days (Yebamot 16:3). John wants us to know clearly that Lazarus is truly dead and that the miracle of Jesus cannot be construed as a resuscitation. (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation (Bible Knowledge Series), 105)

Though many scholars assume that the evangelist presupposes the belief that the spirit hovers for three days, some, notably Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938 , p. 307), doubt just how common this common knowledge was at the time of Jesus as it is not attested until two centuries later.

It can be certain that in referencing the four day period, the evangelist is underscoring that Lazarus is irreversibly dead. He is neither found buried alive nor resuscitated.

In the classic 1987 fantasy film The Princess Bride, Westley (Cary Elwes, b. 1962) the swashbuckling protagonist, is presumed dead but when taken to Miracle Max (Billy Crystal.b. 1948) it is revealed that he is “only mostly dead”. Max explains, “It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do...Go through his clothes and look for loose change.” The four days is to be seen as a definitive postmortem that differentiates between comatose and dead. Lazarus is all dead.

Practically speaking, four days means that for all intents and purposes, Jesus is too late. What is needed is not reanimation but rather resurrection. To produce Lazarus, Jesus must achieve the impossible and as such raising Lazarus is Jesus’s most difficult and astonishing sign. And this is exactly the point that John is attempting to make: Jesus has authority over death.

What state of decay would a body be in after four days? Do you think Lazarus experienced any decomposition (that was restored by Jesus)? What do you think of the belief that the spirit remains with the body for a period of time after death? Which cultures still hold similar beliefs? Does Jesus delay his visit to insure that Lazarus will be definitely deceased when he arrives (John 11:6)? Would it have been any less a miracle had Jesus raised Lazarus after only one day? Have you ever felt that God was slow to act only to later view the delay as perfect timing? Where is Lazarus’ spirit during the four days he is in the tomb and what does he experience?

Lazarus is one of the few people to defy the natural order by dying twice (Hebrews 9:27). Since it is stressed that Lazarus experienced death normally, it has led to speculation as to whether he experienced a normal afterlife — where was Lazarus’ spirit during the four days his body was entombed? From John’s perspective, Lazarus did not enter heaven (John 3:13). Another theory was popularized in the 1984 contemporary Christian song “Lazarus Come Forth”; Carman (b. 1956) sings, “When he died he went to where/The saints of God did stay/In the holding place/They lived beyond the tomb.”

Many have seen Lazarus’ raising as unfair. If Lazarus were in a better place, such as Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22-23), it appears cruel for Jesus to recall him into the natural world only to die again. If Lazarus is relegated to a place like a holding place, purgatory or even hell, it would seem equally unfair that he be rescinded.

Based upon Jesus’ character, it can be assumed that Jesus would not harm anyone, much less, Lazarus whom the text specifically notes that he loved (John 11:5). Wherever Lazarus was, he was safe. As all of the locales for Lazarus’ spirit to rest prove problematic, perhaps Lazarus went nowhere. It is quite possible that Lazarus experiences nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). Jesus uses the euphemism of sleep to describe Lazarus’ condition and that may be exactly his experience (John 11:11, 13).

Problems only arise if the interpreter tries to conform eternity into the box of human time. Eternal time and space need not be synchronized with human experience.

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) explains:

Most of this mischief and confusion about the place of the dead was stirred up not only by Platonic dualism but by biblical literalism and, perhaps most of all, by the perfectly understandable attempt to work all of this out using only the metrics of linear, historical clock time, with its fixed notions of before and after, now and then. But when we speak in a Christian sense about death and resurrection, we are working not in clock time alone, but in at least two time frames: ordinary historical time and eschatological time (or perhaps more accurately, the eternal transcends time)...These two perspectives come together in John 11 in the conversation between Jesus and Martha, the sister of Jesus’ friend Lazarus. In that way of the author of John—superimposing two kinds of time, ordinary and eternal, layering the candlestick and the faces in the same text—we are shown Martha, who is in clock time, historical time, and we are shown Jesus, who is eternal, not constrained by time...From Martha’s perspective, they have run out of time...But then eternity speaks into temporality: “Your brother will rise again.” [John 11:23] (Long, Accompany Them with Singing: The Christian Funeral, 51-53)

Tellingly, the Bible is silent on the matter of Lazarus’ whereabouts. His response is not documented and we hear nothing of the phenomenons that people with near death experiences typically recount. Had he experienced something relevant, his testimony would have been recorded. Scripture is silent on the matter for a reason.

The text does open the discussion of where we will go when we die and on that subject, the Bible speaks (e.g., John 14:2).

Where was Lazarus between the dreaming and the coming true of his resurrection? Why is Lazarus resurrected? How do you think Lazarus felt about his resurrection? Why do you think there is no record of Lazarus’ experience from his perspective? Did Lazarus have a choice in the matter; could he have refused to leave the tomb? Where do you think your spirit will go after you die? Are you assured of your salvation?

“Humans live in time but... [God] destines them to eternity. He therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself, and to that point of time, which they call the Present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), The Screwtape Letters, p. 75

Elijah & The Ravens (I Kings 17)

Who was fed by ravens? Elijah

Elijah bursts onto the Biblical scene seemingly from out of nowhere. (I Kings 17:1). The prophet makes an explosive entrance with what amounts to a hit and run prophecy as immediately after declaring a three-year drought in Israel, God sends Elijah east to the brook Cherith (I Kings 17:1-3). Some have interpreted the immediate voyage to the brook as evidence of an instantaneous stoppage of rain.

Under the direction of King Ahab, Israel had been engaging in idolatry (I Kings 16:31-32) and the drought asserts that Yahweh, not the pagan deity Ba’al, controls the weather.

Amid the drought, God promises to sustain the prophet through the brook’s water and food fed to him by ravens (I Kings 17:4). Elijah follows instructions and God fulfills his promises as twice daily ravens dutifully come with provisions (I Kings 17:5-6).

The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening, and he would drink from the brook. (I Kings 17:6 NASB)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) summarizes, “During a drought, Elijah drinks from a wadi (a seasonal stream) for days and eats the food brought by ravens. Yahweh makes a ‘garden’ in the midst of the wilderness, as he had done for Israel centuries before (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 127).”

Elijah is sent on a mission that few would envy; a reminder that God’s call does not always lead to places the servant would have otherwise chosen. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) acknowledges:

Elijah leaves Ahab’s presence to hide in an inhospitable atmosphere east of the Jordan where, we deduce, there is no normal food supply. God has saved him from Ahab and Jezebel, it is implied (I Kings 17:3; cf. I Kings 18:4, 19:1-2), but under normal circumstances he will now die of hunger. God is, however, able to provide for him. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 132-133)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

This seems almost as risky as staying near Ahab; he is to drink from a wadi and be fed with food provided by ravens...Elijah obeys...and God provides—in an extravagant way for the culture (meat twice a day!)—through unlikely sources. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 97)

Elijah demonstrates faith worthy of a prophet. Gary Inrig (b. 1943) commends:

This demanded faith because the brook that ran through the Kidron was a wadi, a stream that flowed only during the rainy season—hardly a long-term source of water when a drought was on the way. And ravens were untamed scavengers, not providers. How could they serve as a food source?...Nevertheless, Elijah followed God’s instructions. He made his way to the wadi Kerith, where he spent a period of time. It was a place of total dependence upon God, and the Lord demonstrated his sufficiency. (Inrig, 1 & 2 Kings (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 134)

God provides abundantly for the prophet through both natural and supernatural means. Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

While the provision with water happens in a natural way, the provision of food by ravens points to a miracle. Ravens, which are normally regarded as scavengers and as aggressive birds, serve as carriers of food. The daily meat included in the provision moves beyond the average diet since meat was normally eaten only on feast days. Because of the miraculous supply, Elijah is free from concerns; as a man of God he does not need any help and the drought does not concern him. Elijah is already portrayed as an obedient prophet, led by the word of Yahweh because he does not act on his own initiative but follows the orders of Yahweh. It is not his own power but the help of Yahweh that secures his survival in time of need triggered by a drought. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, 183)

There is a stark contrast between the prophet’s circumstances and the nation’s. While Israel dries up, Elijah drinks cool water. While Israel starves, Elijah enjoys a veritable feast. While the constituents of Ba’al suffer, the prophet of Yahweh prospers.

Like God had done during the wilderness wandering, food was available to God’s people even amidst a barren environment (Exodus 16:8, 12). Richard Nelson (b. 1945) notes:

The story of Elijah and the ravens (I Kings 17:2-6) reflects the common folktale motif of the hero being fed by beasts and reminds the reader of the canonical traditions of wilderness feeding. (The LXX caught this implication and makes specific reference to Exodus 16:8, 12.)...The narrator emphasizes that the word of God is the prime mover in the story; Elijah is passively obedient (I Kings 17:2-5a). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 109)

Paul R. House (b. 1958) affirms:

Regardless of harsh physical circumstances, the Lord provides for the prophet. The drought has begun, but Elijah has resources because his God controls all natural resources. God directs him to a brook that has water and where ravens will feed him. Also God has protected Elijah by taking him out of Ahab’s reach (cf. I Kings 18:10). Nothing he needs has been withheld. (House, 1, 2Kings (New American Commentary), 213)

Bruce Wilkinson (b. 1947) applies:

How does God’s sending ravens to feed Elijah during a drought (I Kings 17:6) apply to us today? Obviously this does not mean God desires to feed Christians by means of birds. Instead the principle is that God sometimes meets human needs by unusual means. The application of this principle is that believers can trust the Lord to supply all their needs. (Wilkinson, Almost Every Answer For Practically Any Teacher, 171)

If you could be fed by any animal what would it be? If God is sustaining the prophet, why does he go into exile? When have you experienced a personal drought? How did God provide? Is being fed by a raven sanitary? What do you associate with ravens? Why were ravens enlisted for this task?

Ravens, unclean animals (Leviticus 11:13-15; Deuteronomy 14:12-14), are agents of God. A raven was utilized by Noah to confirm that the flood had not subsided (Genesis 8:6-7). In contrast, it is implied that ravens devour the sons of evil kings who die in the field (I Kings 14:11, 16:4)

In this passage, ravens acts against their nature. Working against type, they share food with Elijah. Frederick Buechner (b. 1926) envisions:

When the ravens came and fed Elijah bread and meat by the brook Cherith (I Kings 17:6), we’re told they did it because the Lord commanded them to. However, I suspect that since, in spite of Edgar Allan Poe [1809-1949], ravens are largely nonverbal, the Lord caused the sight of the old man to be itself the command the way the smell of breakfast is a command to the hungry or the sound of your best friend on the stair a command to rejoice...If the ravens could have talked, they would probably have tried to talk either the Lord or themselves out of doing anything about it. As it was, there was simply nothing for it but to bring him two squares a day till he moved on somewhere else. The sleek, black birds and the bony intractable prophet—since all life is one life, to save another is to save yourself, and with their wings, and beaks, and throbbing birds’ hearts all working at once, the ravens set about doing it. (Buechner, Whistling in the Dark: An ABC Theologized, 7-8)

Being fed by ravens is highly unusual and not surprisingly attempts have been made to naturalize the text. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) surveys:

Interpreters with antisupernatural presuppositions are uncomfortable with the miraculous element in passages like this. Some have gone to extremes to provide natural explanations for the ravens. For example, some suggest that the Hebrew word for “ravens,” oˉrbîm. could be changed a little to stand for “Arabs” or “Orebites,” natives of an imaginary city called “Oreb.” Others say the word means “steppe-dwellers,” suggesting Elijah was fed by friendly bedouins or itinerant traders. But the supernatural miracles belong in the passage and are acceptable to persons of faith, who see them as consistent with the omnipotent power of the Lord who made the universe. (Dilday, 1 & 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament)), 204

In this case, eliminating the supernatural from the narrative defeats the text’s purpose. God is presented as the Beastmaster as the obedient ravens are further proof that Yahweh, not Ba’al is in control.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) comments:

YHWH’s statements that the prophet will drink the water of the Wadi Cherith and eat the food brought to him by the ravens highlight the contention that YHWH controls nature to support the prophet. The reference to ravens presupposes their ability to scavenge for food (cf. Proverbs 30:17), to live in inhospitable environments (cf. Isaiah 34:11), and to find their way generally (cf. Noah’s use of ravens in Genesis 8:7). Job 38:41 indicates that YHWH cares for the ravens, which is analogous to the use of the raven to care for Elijah in the present context. This motif suggests associations with the wilderness tradition of the Pentateuch in which YHWH sustained the people by providing water, manna, and quails (Exodus 16:1-17:7; Numbers 11:1-35, 20:1-13; cf. Jeremiah 35:1-19, which refers to the Rechabites, who live in the desert in keeping with the traditions of their ancestors). (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 212)

In the midst of drought, God, unlike Ba’al provides. Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concludes:

Communication between God and the nonhuman is not an uncommon Old Testament theme (even for ravens, Psalm 147:9). But the point...is not miracle or micromanagement. Rather, it stakes a claim that Israel’s God, not Baal, is the Creator, who provides water and who works through nonhuman creatures that are not usually among the animals who provide food in order to sustain the faithful. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 99)

The prophet’s food source (ravens) like the prophet’s proclamation (drought) reminds that Yahweh is superior to Ba’al. And the contest is not close.

How can we, like the ravens, act against our own selfish impulses to benefit God’s cause? What is the most surprising way in which God has provided for you? Have you ever been fed by an animal? Where have you seen animals assisting humans? What is the nicest thing an animal has ever done for you?

“Animals are not humans with reduced capacities. They have their own capacities, their own spectrum of aptitudes and behaviors.” - Jean Kazez, Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals, p. 95

Sceva’s Seven Shyster Sons (Acts 19:14)

How many sons of Sceva were overcome by the man with the evil spirit? Seven (Acts 19:14)

While ministering in Ephesus, God performs miracles through Paul (Acts 19:11-12). Some itinerant Jewish exorcists attempt to replicate the apostle’s success by casting out evil spirits (Acts 19:13-17). Seven sons of a Jewish man named Sceva think that they have mastered an incantation and appeal to “Jesus whom Paul preaches (Acts 19:13 NASB).” They have bitten off more than can chew as the afflicted man questions their authority, famously responding:

And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” (Acts 19:15 NASB)

The man then proceeds to leave the would be exorcists battered and naked with their physical condition mirroring their spiritual reality (Acts 19:16). The seven sons of Sceva represent the most explicit case of spiritual counterfeiting in the New Testament (Acts 19:14-17).

Sceva is described as “high priest” (archiereus) though he is likely as much a high priest as his sons are exorcists. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) explains:

No person of that name ever was the Jewish high priest. Either Sceva was simply a member of a high-priestly family, or he assumed the title for professional purposes in order to impress and delude the public, since a high priest (or his sons) would have close contact with the supernatural; we may compare the way in which modern quacks take such titles as ‘Doctor’ or ‘Professor’. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 311)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) deduces:

We know nothing about any Scaeva, and it is difficult to assess the characterization of him as a “chief priest.” There are two historical possibilities: a) Scaeva was part of a priestly family–he certainly was not one of the Jerusalem priests we know about from other sources; b) he advertised himself as such, the way Mark Twain [1835-1910]’s charlatan in Huckleberry Finn advertised himself as the “Lost Dauphin.” But it is also possible that: a) the Latin name Scaeva could bear some of its etymological weight of “untrustworthy,’ and that b) Luke had no historical information to deal with here at all. (Johnson, Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 340)

Some have wanted to legitimize Sceva’s status because the narrative itself gives no indication that his position is fabricated. While Sceva was certainly not the high priest, the term might be broader than typically thought as it is used in the plural in Luke-Acts (Luke 9:22, 19:47, 20:1, 19). It may better be thought of as “chief priest” (Acts 4:23). Ernst Haenchen (1894-1975) claims that the author believed Sceva to be authentic, rationalizing that the story would only be included if the author presumed Paul had triumphed over a legitimate priest (Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 565).

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds another theory, speculating that Sceva was a Jew who defected to a pagan Roman cult (Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible), 650).

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) concludes that the most likely scenario is that the sons of Sceva are con men perpetuating a fraud:

It is possible that Sceva actually belonged to a Jewish chief-priestly family, but more probably “Jewish chief priest” (or even “Jewish high priest”) was his self-designation, set out on a placard: Luke might have placed the words between quotation marks had they been invented in his day. The Jewish high priest was the one man who was authorized to pronounce the otherwise ineffable name; this he did once a year, in the course of service prescribed for the day of atonement. Such a person would therefore enjoy high prestige among magicians. It was not the ineffable name, however, but the name of Jesus that Sceva’s sons employed in their imitate Paul’s exorcizing ministry. But when they tried to use it, like an unfamiliar weapon wrongly handled it exploded in their hands. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 368)

Given their falsely citing Jesus’ name in the story, this interpretation fits the context. When a sin, such as duplicity, is present in one realm of a person’s life, it tends to leak over to others.

Whatever else they may be, French L. Arrington (b. 1931) concludes that the sons of Sceva are misinformed:

Sceva may have been a member of a high-priestly family, or he may have been a renegade Jew who had assumed the title to impress others and deceive the public. The exorcists themselves could have falsely claimed to be the sons of the high priest. Evidently, they do not know much about the life and the ministry of Jesus. These unbelieving brothers are simple magicians, and they fail to recognize that the name of Jesus is powerful only when it is pronounced by His authority and with faith in Him. (Arrington, The Spirit-Anointed Church: A Study on the Acts of the Apostles, 303)

As Jews in Ephesus, the sons of Sceva are far from home both geographically and spiritually. It is possible that they are a religious order and not literal brothers. Presumably, the exorcism industry was substantial enough in Ephesus to support these practitioners. Their competitors were offering something they were not and the sons of Sceva opted to enter the Jesus market.

Acts is likely implying that the sons of Sceva are modeling Paul who had presumably invoked the name of Jesus. David G. Peterson (b. 1944) conjectures:

Paul’s apparent success at healing and exorcism prompted imitation...These itinerant Jewish exorcists, who were fascinated by Paul’s power and influence, recognised that his secret was the name of Jesus. But theirs was a fraudulent activity, since they were not Christians and used the name of Jesus like a magic formula. Although they sought to emulate Paul...they were unsuccessful. The implication is that the name of Jesus was effective to deliver and to heal only when used by those who genuinely called upon Jesus as Lord. These pretenders did not have the appropriate moral or spiritual integrity with which to engage the powers of evil. Luke further emphasizes the incongruity of the situation by revealing that seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. (Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 538)

The fact that they claimed connection to the high priest may demonstrate their interest in names. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) explains:

Since the high priest was the only one permitted to utter the “unpronounceable name of God” and enter his presence in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, it makes sense that these brothers would use that title as part of their “hype” (m. Yoma 3:8, 5:1, 6:2)...The sons’ syncretistic appropriation follows the time honored practice of piling name upon powerful name so as to create incantations strong enough to require spirits to do one’s bidding. One such conjuration goes “I conjure you by the god of the Hebrews/Jesus, JABA IAĒ ABRAŌTH AIA THŌTH ELE ELŌ...” (Hans Dieter Betz [b. 1931] 1986:96). The name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches is these men’s newest and most potent “power name” (compare Ephesians 1:21). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 277)

Ephesus proves a hotbed of supernatural activity (Acts 19:1-41), so much so that the abnormal appears normal there. The supernatural aspects of this text (Acts 19:11-20) has proven difficult for some and many commentaries ignore the episode entirely. Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) laments:

In this most difficult of chapters in Acts, readers find themselves with a “John the Baptist Cult,” healing through sweat towels, and now the bizarre account of the seven sons of Sceva. No less a conservative scholar than Sir William M. Ramsay [1851-1939] chokes right at this point. (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary), 324)

The fact that the sons of Sceva are performing a cultic incantation is seen in the use of the Greek term horkizo (Acts 19:13), translated as “adjure” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NRSV, RSV), “command” (HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) and “exorcize” (NKJV) (Acts 19:13). Eric Sorensen (b. 1961) relays:

An important term in later magical texts, ὁρκίζω [horkizo] refers to the swearing of an oath, or putting one under the obligation to say or to do something. It appears, however, only once in the New Testament, in the sons of Sceva episode. When ὁρκίζω receives the intensifying prefix ἐξ we arrive at the basis for our own familiar terminology for “exorcism.” It is a compound, however, that also very nearly eludes the New Testament, with one occurrence of a substantive form (ἐξορκίστής), also found in the story of the sons of Sceva, and a single occurrence of the verbal form which appears in a non-exorcist context. The verbal form, “to exorcize” (ἐξορκίζειν) only begins to gain currency with reference to the removal of evil spirits during the second and third centuries of the Common Era, when exorcismus also entered as a loan word into the Latin language through the influence of Christian writers. Its use in this context in ecclesiological writings from the second century of the Common Era onwards led to its eventual adoption also into English, where it conveys the sense of casting out demons from its earliest occurrences. (Sorenson, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, 132)

The sons of Sceva are actually correct in identifying the name of Jesus as critical to Paul’s methodology but they wrongly assume that the name can be used haphazardly. C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) comments:

The central issue here is the name of the Lord Jesus...As all who minister deliverance on a regular basis know, the use of the name of Jesus is crucial. Jesus said, “If you ask anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14). He also said that among the signs that follow believers, “In My name they will cast out demons” (Mark 16:17)... The only authority we have to cast out demons does not reside inside of us naturally; it is delegated to us by Jesus. This is similar to the authority a United States ambassador would have in a foreign country. Ambassadors do not go to other countries in their own names; they go in the name of the president of the United States. And only those whom the president so designates can use his name effectively. If I went to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, for example, and announced that I have come in the name of the president of the United States, they would laugh at me...This is exactly what happened to the seven sons of Sceva. The name of Jesus is no magic formula...Jesus had not authorized the seven sons of Sceva to use His name and, therefore, the power was absent...Because they used the Lord’s name in vain, the seven sons opened themselves to a ferocious spiritual backlash that they would not soon forget. (Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary, 438-39)

The sons of Sceva arrogate the authority of the name of Jesus. If one is not in communion with the owner of the name, she is not in a position to use it. Graham H. Twelftree (b. 1950) notes:

Through repeating the word ’Ιουδαιος (“Jew,” Acts 19:13, 14; cf. Acts 19:17), Luke draws attention to the sons of Sceva being Jews. This is not to be taken in any anti-Semitic sense, for all his major characters are Jews, but in the sense of not being Christians. In particular, in light of what he has just narrated about Paul, Luke is probably condemning these peripatetics in that they are not God or Spirit empowered. Luke describes Paul as letting God work directly through him (Acts 19:11), but the sons of Sceva are said to rely on a thirdhand source of power-authority...Thus Luke draws attention to the importance of the “spirit” identity of the exorcist. Unlike Jesus and Paul of Luke’s narrative, the sons of Sceva are not known in the spirit realm. Therefore, even though, by implication, the spirit would obey Jesus and Paul, their authority is obviated by the intrusion of an unqualified exorcist. (Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians, 150)

Paul produces miracles; the sons of Sceva perform magic. The difference is the authorized use of the name of Jesus. Spiritual liberation comes not from incantations but rather God’s spirit. Without this power source, we are left to battle with our own insufficient strength. As such, Bob Larson (b. 1944) views the story of the sons of Sceva as a cautionary tale:

Be careful not to presumptuously engage in spiritual warfare. If you do, the protection of God’s guidance might be excluded, as it was with the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14-16). These arrogant exorcists tried to cast out demons without the apostle Paul’s knowledge and authority. They didn’t know Christ and acted in self-confidence. Demons attacked them and physically over powered and disgraced them. (Larson, Larson’s Book of Spiritual Warfare), 26)

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) reminds that in matters of the spirit, using mere formula is ineffective:

The seven sons of Sceva thought they could manipulate God for selfish ends. If they just had the incantations right, the techniques down, and the process perfected—so they thought—they could “use” God for their own purposes. They failed to realize, however, that Christ’s power cannot be accessed by reciting his name like a magic charm. God works his power only through those he chooses and only at times he determines. Beware of thinking that you can control God by your clever prayers or by precisely following man-made schemes. God is free to do as he likes. (Barton, Acts (Life Application Bible Commentary), 330)

How important are the right words in prayer? Have you ever thought if you found just the right phrase or prayer posture that God would respond as you desired? Conversely, have you ever known someone who said all of the right words but had no substance behind them? Have you ever known someone who tried to play themselves off as something they were not? Why are the sons of Sceva engaging in this activity? Are the sons of Sceva successful?

The sons of Sceva were presumably effective on some levels (Acts 19:13). J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) realizes:

In some sense, the sons of Sceva do succeed in casting the unclean spirit out of its original victim. The man in need of cleansing is rescued—the narrator does not leave this demon-possessed man, with whom readers are likely to show sympathy, without deliverance. Yet the evil spirit is not conquered—it has found some new hapless victims, persons with whom the reader, however, is presumably not to be sympathetic. The victim is released while the villainous characters get what they deserve. (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 347)

Ajith Fernando (b. 1948) analyzes:

As Ed Murphy [b. 1921] points out, this was a case of evil spirits battling each other—that is, the evil spirit in the possessed person battled the demonized exorcists [ The Handbook of Spiritual Warfare, 349]. How can we harmonize this fact with Christ’s statement that Satan will not be divided against Satan [Matthew 12:25-28; Mark 3:23-26]? Demons can expel and attack other demons to enhance the control of demons over people. Such demon-to-demon attacks only increase Satan’s hold over people. (Fernando, Acts (The NIV Application Commentary), 468)

The text’s real issue is the incomparable power of the name of Jesus and ostensibly the believer’s access to it. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) reminds:

The point is of course that Ephesus...was a centre of power: magic power, political power, religious power. And Paul’s ministry demonstrated that the power of the name of the Lord Jesus was stronger than all of them...Luke tells this splendid little tale of the exorcists who thought they could just add the name of Jesus to their repertoire of magic charms, only to discover that the demon they were addressing on this occasion respected Jesus (and Paul as well, as it turned out) but had no respect for them. Here is a vital principle, which Luke has emphasized already in chapters 8 and 13: the gospel does indeed provide power, but it is not ‘magic’. Magic attempts...to gain that power without paying the price of humble submission to the God whose power it is. But to reject the power, as some (alas) do, because you are afraid of magic, is to throw out the teapot with the old teabags. (Acts for Everyone, Part 2 (New Testament for Everyone), 117-119)

How do you read the supernatural passages of the Bible? Do you believe that there is power in the name Jesus? Are you known in the spiritual realm? Do you wish to be?

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” - Alice Walker (b. 1944)

Miriam: Snow White (Numbers 12:10)

What woman turned as white as snow? Miriam, Moses’ sister (Numbers 12:10).

While the Israelites were encamped at Hazeroth (Numbers 11:35) during their wilderness wandering, Moses’ siblings, Aaron and Miriam, criticized his marriage (Numbers 12:1). God summoned the trio to the tent of meeting and arbitrated the family feud siding with Moses (Numbers 12:4-8). When God left, Miriam was leprous, “as white as snow (Numbers 12:10 NASB)”. The pallidity indicates that the disease materialized in its most malignant form (Exodus 4:6, II Kings 5:27).

After constantly dealing with criticism from the outside, Moses faced conflict within his own household from people who ought to have proved his greatest support. It is not unusual for a prophet to be without honor among his own people (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; John 4:44).

Has your family ever disapproved of your actions? Can we criticize a leader under whom we work? What is the real source of Aaron’s and Miriam’s animosity?

Two factors are connected to the dispute: Moses’ marriage and his position.

Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” And the LORD heard this. (Numbers 12:1-2, NASB)

The public issue was Moses’ marriage. The wife’s identity is shrouded in mystery as scholars debate her nationality (“Cushite” is ambiguous) and whether the woman in question is Moses’ first wife, Zipporah (Exodus 2:21). Some have seen this as a racist response to an interracial marriage. Those who feel that a second marriage was the sole reason for the dispute note that Miriam’s exile was seven days, the typical duration of a Hebrew wedding feast.

There also seems to be a dispute over hierarchy as Aaron and Miriam remind themselves that God has spoken through them as well as Moses (Numbers 12:2). This is true as Aaron (Exodus 4:15-16; 28:30) and Miriam (Exodus 15:20) had indeed spoken for God. In making this claim, they were asserting their right to lead. In the previous chapter, God granted the prophetic spirit to seventy elders and to Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:24-29), cementing a hierarchy with Moses at the top. Moses’ delegating power was an idea originally suggested by Jethro, the father of Zipporah (Exodus 18:14-26). This could connect the diluting of Aaron’s and Miriam’ s power to Moses’ wife.

The rabbinic interpretations connect the two seemingly divergent strains of the story by imagining that Miriam challenged Moses because she believed that he was neglecting his wife (e.g. Rashi (1040-1105) on Numbers 12:1). In this reading, Aaron and Miriam were, in effect, saying that they were also prophets yet had not disregarded their family obligations. This does not fit the tone of the text as the they name the woman’s nationality unnecessarily and do not name her, which hardly sounds like they are advocating for her.

It appears Moses’ marriage was merely pretense concealing a power play. Moses, the youngest of the three siblings, had become the leader (Exodus 2:3-4, 6:20; Numbers 26:59). The timing of the event in connection with the appointment of the seventy shows that Aaron and Miriam’s power was waning. The otherwise needless parenthetical aside regarding Moses’ humility (Numbers 12:3) signals that pride played a role in this incident. Most decidedly, when God rebukes Aaron and Miriam at length nothing is said of Moses’ marriage, attesting that it was not the issue (Numbers 12:6-8).

Though Aaron acknowledges his own complicity (Numbers 12:11), Miriam receives all of the punishment. Why does Miriam take one for the team? Does gender play any role? What is God’s purpose in afflicting Miriam?

The text subtly demonstrates that Miriam was the instigator in the sedition. Though no modern English translations (outside of [Robert] Young [1822-1888]’s Literal Translation) indicate it, the verb used for “spoke” (dabar) used in Numbers 12:1 is the feminine singular form (v’tidaber). It should literally read “and she spoke” connoting that it was Miriam who spoke against Moses. That Miriam is named ahead of Aaron is further evidence that she spearheaded the attack. In every other instance when the two are named, including two in this story, Aaron is listed ahead of Miriam (Numbers 12:4, 5, 26:59; I Chronicles 6:3; Micah 6:4). Aaron simply followed as he had done at Sinai when he made the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:1-6). Even so, Aaron was involved and appears to go undisciplined. In a similar incident, Adam was reproved for his part in “The Fall”, even though he was not the instigator (Genesis 3:17-19).

The Talmud argues that Aaron’s status as high priest excluded him from leprosy as the high priest could not become unclean (Leviticus 21:10-12). In fact, as high priest, Aaron would have been responsible for pronouncing Miriam leprous (Leviticus 13). Had he contracted leprosy, Aaron would no longer have been able to perform his duties as high priest and worship would have been interrupted. Though many priests and preachers have been spared for the sake of institutions they represented, this would set a bad theological precedent as the priest would be allowed to sin more than the populace rather than be held to a higher standard (James 3:1).

Miriam’s contracting leprosy may have been an ingenious method of conflict resolution. The brothers’ protectiveness of their sister kicked in and they reunited immediately to face the issue. Their emotional response to the situation indicates their concern for their sister (Numbers 12:11-13). They may have been close to her in ways they were not to each other. When Miriam contracts leprosy, the group’s focus shifts and all three are reminded that before they were the exalted leaders of a burgeoning nation, they were family. Perhaps God was not making an example out of Miriam but rather reuniting a family, gaining repentance from the offending parties and restoring community. In an instant, that is what happened.

Micah 6:4 remembers the trio as the leaders of the Exodus. Together.

“Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt
And ransomed you from the house of slavery,
And I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam. (Micah 6:4, NASB)