Bezalel & Building (Exodus 31:2-6)

Name the two craftsmen who worked on the tabernacle. Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 31:2-6)

The Tabernacle served as the representation of the divine presence during Israel’s wilderness wandering. God goes to great lengths in planning this portable dwelling place, dictating six chapters of explicit instructions to Moses (Exodus 25:1-30:38). God not only cares about the design of the tabernacle but also who will implement the vision. Moses is not to construct the tabernacle nor would there be politicking to secure this government contract. Instead, God personally selects two master craftsmen: Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 31:2-6).

“See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship. And behold, I Myself have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill, that they may make all that I have commanded you: (Exodus 31:2-6 NASB)

From start to finish the tabernacle was a God given structure. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) observes:

For the Old Testament writer the concrete form of the tabernacle is inseparable from its spiritual meaning. Every detail of the structure reflects the one divine will and nothing rests on the ad hoc decision of human builders. There is no tension whatever between form and content, or symbol and reality throughout the tabernacle chapters. Moreover, the tabernacle is not conceived of as a temporary measure for a limited time, but one in which the permanent priesthood of Aaron serves throughout all their generation (Exodus 27:20ff). (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 540)

F.B. Meyer (1847-1929) lauds:

The tabernacle with its contents was the subject of much divine thought and care. It was not a poor hut run up in an hour. It was not the creation of human fancy. Man was not the creator, but the executor of the divine program and plan. It was thus that God made the heavens and the earth. He was alone when the foundations of the heavens and earth were laid. To Him alone must be attributed, also, the pattern of the human life of our Lord, in which the tabernacle was duplicated in flesh and blood. In the minutest details, He is immediately interested; and in the most holy place of our nature, within the veil, there is a shrine, where angels might tread with reverence, because His holy presence is there.” (Meyer, Devotional Commentary on Exodus, 303)

The final instructions God gives regarding the tabernacle concern its artisans. The selection of craftsmen is a standard element in ancient building stories, especially in the region where the Bible was written (e.g., the Ugaritic Baal Cycle).

God hires local contractors for the job. Bezalel is “called by name” (Exodus 31:2), indicating a personal selection and perhaps an intimate acquaintance. Bezalel and Oholiab represent a balanced ticket as Bezalel hails from Judah in the south (Exodus 31:2), the largest tribe (Numbers 1:27), while Oholiab is from Dan (Exodus 31:6), one of the smallest tribes (Numbers 1:39), situated in the north.

God selects people who have already demonstrated talent with the requisite skill necessary to assemble the tabernacle. Some have even posed that Bezalel and Oholiab are representative of famous family guilds. It can be certain that they constitute highly skilled labor.

They likely acquired this skill set through slavery. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. (b. 1951) speculates:

Bezalel was probably already a skilled craftsman in the normal course of things before he received his divine commission...Ancient Egypt is renowned for its magnificent art, and although it glorified the Pharaohs, much of the actual labor was done by slaves. Perhaps Bezalel had been forced to adorn a pyramid. The Lord speaking to Moses indicated that He had given these gifts to Bezalel prior to the Sinai revelation. Furthermore, He states that He gave similar ability to others who would be helping Bezalel. (Veith, State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe, 108)

Steven J. Binz (b. 1955) asserts:

There is a marked contrast between the dignity associated with work done in freedom and the brutal labor of slavery. God’s spirit is recognized as the source of the artisan’s skill, talent, and competence. There is pride and concern associated with mastery in the art of embroidery, metalwork, jewelry, and woodcarving. (Binz, The God of Freedom and Life: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 117)

Relatively little is known of Bezalel and Oholiab. Bezalel’s name appears nine times in Scripture; seven in Exodus (Exodus 31:2, 35:30, 36:1, 2, 8, 37:1, 38:22) and twice in Chronicles (I Chronicles 2:20; II Chronicles 1:5). Oholiab’s name is found only five times, all in conjunction with this building project (Exodus 31:6, 35:34, 36:1, 2, 38:23). There is some debate as to whether they worked in tandem or if Bezalel was the foreman. It appears that Bezalel holds a higher position as he is given preeminence.

Bezalel’s heritage is intriguing. His grandfather is named Hur (Exodus 31:2), a common name meaning “Whitey”. It is possible that this is the same Hur who famously propped up Moses’ hands during a victory over the Amalekites (Exodus 17:10-13).

The fact that Bezalel is from the tribe of Judah is noteworthy. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) examines:

What is perhaps most significant about Bezalel’s family lineage is his being a Judahite. In all aspects of tabernacle service and maintenance, Levites were the only persons allowed responsibility. They alone could set up, take down, transport, maintain, or utilize anything pertaining to the tabernacle. But the original construction was another matter. The servants in God’s house were chosen for their duty by reason of birth lineage; but those who actually built it were chosen because of spiritual gifting. No Judahite would be able to touch anything in the tabernacle once it was constructed and sanctified, but until then the best craftsmen, regardless of tribe, would handle every part of it as they made it into a beautiful, portable divine dwelling for Israel’s God. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary), 649-50)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) resolves:

Hur’s grandson, Bezalel, is the foreman overseeing the tabernacle’s construction (Exodus 31:2; I Chronicles 2:19-20). Postbiblical Jewish literature sometimes “found” a husband for female figures in Scripture to whose husbands Scripture never refers (e.g., Dinah marries Job, and Rahab marries Joshua). Josephus (37-100, Antiquities 3.2.4 §54) says that Miriam married Hur. This creates marital ties between the tribe of Levi (Miriam) and the tribe of Judah (Hur), as does the marriage of Levite Aaron to Judahite Elizabeth (Exodus 6:23). (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 270)

Bezalel possesses the impressive set of skills necessary to complete the task at hand. A mythology has developed around Bezalel’s giftedness. One Jewish tradition asserts that Bezalel is only twelve years old at time of his commissioning (Sanhedrin 69b). Godfrey Ashby (b. 1930) has dubbed Bezalel “the Leonardo da Vinci of the Hebrews” (Exodus: Go Out and Meet God (International Theological Commentary), 142).

Scott M. Langston (b. 1960) chronicles:

The image of Bezalel...became the medieval prototype of the master jeweler, while also contributing to a Christian mystical understanding of the relationship with God. Richard of St. Victor (1123-1173), as well as the author of the fourteenth century work The Cloud of Unknowing, portrays Bezalel as “the prototype of the ideal Christian labouring, like the jeweler in Pearl, towards a vision of God by his own spiritual effort with the help of divine grace.” Casting him as the model of the “earth-bound artist, achieving a spiritual vision of grace, by sheer craftsmanship and the perfection of accomplished art.” (Langston, Exodus: Through The Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries), 226)

Bezalel is not merely a jack of all trades but a master. Even so, Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) clarifies:

The two personalities are not architects. They possess the necessary skills to fashion the several individual items in accordance with the instructions that they receive from Moses. However, when it comes to assembling the parts into an integrated whole, it is Moses personally who performs the task, not they [Exodus 16:35; Numbers 11:6; Joshua 5:12; Nehemiah 9:20-21]. This really has to be so, within the framework of the narrative, since only Moses carries a mental picture of the Tabernacle in its completed, coherent form. No one else knows the disposition of the individual components and the harmonious interrelationships of the constituent elements. (Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, 200-1)

Bezalel’s companion is Oholiab. Though most commonly spelled “Oholiab” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), some translations render the name “Aholiab” (KJV, NKJV). Oholiab appears in the Bible only during his commissioning (Exodus 31:6) and the fulfillment passages of his task (Exodus 35:34, 36:1-2, 38:23). There is debate as to whether Oholiab serves as a co-leader or an assistant. At the very least, Bezalel is second in command on the project.

Oholiab’s name is ironic given his task. Randall C. Bailey (b. 1951) notes:

This name may reflect a wordplay since “Oholiab” can mean “father’s tent,” “father is my tent (= protection),” “the tent of the father,” “the father of the tent,” or the like. Further, names containing the word “tent” are prominent in the ancient Near East. (Bailey, Exodus (The College Press NIV Commentary), 330)

Having “tent” as part of one’s name is not irregular in the Bible. Oholibama (“A high place [is] my tent”), Oholah (“Her tent”) and Oholobah (“My tent [is] in her”) are other examples. Oholibama is one of Esau’s Canaanite wives (Genesis 36:2, 14, 18) while the last two names are metaphorical monikers that the prophet Ezekiel supplies to sinful Samaria and apostate Judah respectively (Ezekiel 23:4, 5, 11).

It is often said that “God does not call the equipped. He equips the called.” In this case God calls the equipped.

Bezael and Oholiab’s names suggest that they may have been born for a time such as this. Peter Enns (b. 1961) appraises:

If it is even valid to seek significance in the etymology of names (a last resort when other information is lacking), Bezalel probably means “in the shadow/protection of El [’el, a name of God].” Oholiab can mean either “father is my tent” or perhaps “father is a tent.” Thus, the names themselves may be an allusion to the tabernacle. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 543)

Why does Moses not build the tabernacle himself? Why does God not simply speak the tabernacle into being? Who constructs and fixes churches today? Is the task of church maintenance deemed important in your church? What task have you been gifted to do? Have you ever felt as though you were enacting God’s vision? Is there anything you feel that you were born to do?

The construction of the tabernacle is not merely a human effort. As is often the case, God allows humanity to partner with the divine will. In addition to his innate talent, Bezalel and crew are given a significant performance enhancer: the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3), more specifically, the Spirit of El (as opposed to the personal name Yahweh). Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, the phrase “the Spirit of God” occurs only five times (Genesis 1:2, 41:38; Exodus 31:3, 35:31; Numbers 24:2) twice in connection with the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 31:3, 35:31).

William T. Miller (b. 1941) comments:

The statement in Exodus 31:3, I have filled him with divine spirit (or with the spirit of God), is quite striking. The only other use of the phrase by P is found in Genesis 1:2, the spirit of God swept over the face of the waters. William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) speaks of Bezalel the artist as a “theologian, exampling divine activity and rendering it active and comprehensible.” (Miller, The Book of Exodus: Question by Question, 314)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) theologizes:

Bezalel executes in miniature the divine creative role of Genesis 1 in the building of the tabernacle. The spirit of God with which the craftsmen are filled is a sign of the living, breathing force that lies behind the completing of the project just as it lies behind the creation. Their intricate craftsmanship mirrors God’s own work. The precious metals with which they work take up the very products of God’s beautiful creation and give new shape to that beauty within creation. Just as God created such a world in which God himself would dwell (not explicit in Genesis, but see Psalm 104:1-4; Isaiah 40:22), so now these craftsmen re-create a world in the midst of chaos wherein God may dwell once again in a world suitable for the divine presence. (Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 269)

This incident makes Bezalel the first person explicitly said to be filled with the Spirit in Scripture. It is worth noting that the first person filled with the Spirit is not a patriarch, lawgiver, prophet or judge. It is rather Bezalel, an artist.

Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) remarks:

It is remarkable that the special spirit-endowment of Bezalel—as well as Oholiab and the unnamed others (Exodus 31:6)—is given to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, in every kind of craft (Exodus 31:4-5). In other words, “spiritual gifts” are not reserved here for the realm with which we often associate them (e.g., prayer, prophecy, etc.). Instead, they are applied to the work of artists and artisans working with tangible materials. Again, the term “incarnational” seems appropriate; God works through earthly, bodily, and material functions of human beings (cf. Exodus 25:3-7). (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 368)

Jo Ann Davidson adds:

One does not normally link the ministry of the Holy Spirit to artistic talent. But in this verse [Exodus 35:31] it is shown to be the initial gift given to Bezalel. In fact, Bezalel is the very first person recorded in biblical history as inspired by the Holy Spirit, even though he is an artisan and not by vocation a priest or a prophet. God’s call of Bezalel mirrors language of the New Testament where God again speaks of "calling", "filling" (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 4:8, 13:2, 16:10; Romans 1:1; I Corinthians 1:1). (Davidson, Toward a Theology of Beauty: A Biblical Perspective, 28-29)

In Bezalel, the filling of the Spirit manifests itself in three ways (Exodus 31:3). John I. Durham (b. 1933) delineates:

Bezalel...is described as specially endowed for his assignment by an infilling of the divine spirit, which adds to his native ability three qualities that suit him ideally for the task at hand: wisdom (חכמה), the gift to understand what is needed to fulfill Yahweh’s instructions; discernment (חבונה), the talent for solving the inevitable problems involved in the creation of so complex a series of objects and materials; and skill (דצת), the experienced hand needed to guide and accomplish the labor itself. Bezalel, so gifted, is the ideal combination of theoretical knowledge, problem-solving practicality, and planning capability who can bring artistic ideals to life with his own hands. That such a comprehensive equipping is intended here is suggested also by the summary listing of what Bezalel is to accomplish: he is to design intricate patterns in three metals, gold, silver and copper; to engrave gemstones; and to carve wood; all these talents are required for “workmanship of every kind.” In sum, Bezalel is made expert by Yahweh himself for every kind of work necessary for fulfilling the instructions given to Moses on Sinai. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary), 410)

Given how few details are provided regarding the tabernacle’s blueprints, perhaps such divine influence is necessary. The indwelling of the Spirit in this task certainly demonstrate’s the tabernacle’s significance.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) interprets:

This shows how important the tabernacle was. God wanted his house built in a special way. To that end, the same Holy Spirit who with the Father and Son created the world in six days (see Genesis 1:2) was poured out on the men who made the tabernacle...The outpouring of the Spirit teaches us something about the importance of spiritual gifts in the church. It takes the Holy Spirit to build God’s house. In the time of Moses, the Spirit came with special gifts for building the tabernacle. Now as the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts through faith, he brings gifts such as teaching, evangelism, discernment, leadership, hospitality, and service. These spiritual gifts are for building God’s dwelling place on earth (see Ephesians 4:7-13), which today is the church of Jesus Christ. Whatever spiritual gifts we have come from God the Holy Spirit, who calls us to use them in God’s house. The Scripture urges us “to excel in gifts that build up the church” (I Corinthians 14:12). (Ryken, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory (Preaching the Word), 1090)

The combination of the Spirit of God with Bezalel and Oholiab’s skills is effective. Exodus documents both the beginning of this work (Exodus 35:30-36:2) and its successful completion (Exodus 38:22-23).

Are Bezalel’s skills “spiritual gifts”? Is there a difference between a skill and a spiritual gift? Why do you think that an artisan is the first person said to be filled with the Spirit of God? If God’s Spirit was upon them, why did they need the skill set they had? Have you ever partnered with God? Have you ever felt filled with God’s Spirit? When? What are your spiritual gifts? How are you using them to build up the house of God?

“Where the spirit does not work with the hand there is no art.” - Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)

Philip Teleports? (Acts 8:39-40)

How did Philip get from the desert to Azotus? The Spirit of the Lord caught him up (Acts 8:39)

At the conclusion of the famous encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), Acts adds a summary statement (Acts 8:39-40). It is noted that after Philip accomplishes his mission, he is “snatched” and lands in the seacoast town of Azotus (Acts 8:39 NASB). The text reads almost if the missionary is teleported.

When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities until he came to Caesarea. (Acts 8:39-40 NASB)

There is an intentional contrast between the two characters as the eunuch leaves by his own volition whereas Philip is led by the Spirit. The natural and supernatural are placed next to one another and in doing so the Spirit moves them in opposite directions. Just as there had been direct divine involvement in their meeting (Acts 8:26, 29), so there too in their separation (Acts 8:39-40).

Nothing is said of Philip’s ministry in Azotus. Acts begins the next chapter with Saul/Paul and the book and follows him, not Philip (Acts 9:1). The significance is not Philip’s ministry in Azotus as this is the only New Testament reference to the former Philistine stronghold. The importance is in getting Philip to Azotus.

Philip is subject to a sudden disappearance. The language is indicative of a supernatural exit. The Greek harpazo implies a sudden forceful action with no resistance. This verb suggests that Philip is taken by force and is rendered variously “caught” (ASV, KJV, NKJV, RSV), “snatched” (NASB, NLT, NRSV), “took” (CEV, MSG, NIV) and “carried” (ESV, HCSB). He next finds himself in Azotus (Acts 8:40). The passive “was found” (heurethē) is properly translated as reflective. Though some have interpreted that Philip merely had a strong inner compulsion to go to Azotus, the text implies a supernatural exit.

This form of transport is unique as it the only such occurrence in the New Testament though the use of the verb is not without precedent. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) analyzes:

The Spirit takes Philip away. The verb here for being caught up ἁρπάζω (harpazō), appears twice in Acts (in Acts 23:10 Paul is taken away from a scene to protect him) and twelve other times in the New Testament (Matthew 11:12, 12:29, 13:19; John 6:15, 10:11-13, 27-29 [2x]; II Corinthians 12:2-4 [2x; Paul caught up into the third heaven]; I Thessalonians 4:15-17 [saints being caught up in the air]; Jude 1:22-23; Revelation 12:5). His instant removal makes clearer still that God is at work. It recalls Jesus’ removal in Luke 24:31. Like Elisha, Philip is directed in ministry (I Kings 18:12, 46; II Kings 2:16 [a similar taking up]; similarly 11:24). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 345-46)

The Western text has a longer reading which adds that an angel did the snatching. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) notes:

This is an abrupt ending to the story, and it is eased by a longer form of the text which reads: ‘And when they came up out of the water, the Holy Spirit fell upon the eunuch, but the angel of the Lord caught up Philip...’ Since in the Greek sentence the word for ‘Holy’ comes after ‘Spirit’, it can easily be seen that the whole of the italicized phrase might have dropped out of the text by accident. If so, the longer form of the text could have been the original wording, in which case the story would have related explicitly how the gift of the Spirit followed upon the eunuch’s baptism. Although the MS evidence for the longer text is weak, it could be original. The phrase ‘Spirit of the Lord’, however is found in Acts 5:9 and Luke 4:18, and the picture of the Spirit (rather than an angel) transporting a person is found in I Kings 18:12; II Kings 2:16; Ezekiel 3:14; et al. In any case, the fact that the eunuch went on his homeward journey rejoicing allows us to infer that he has received the Spirit. (Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 165-66)

This addition might remove inconsistency from the text but makes no difference in understanding what happened to Philip.

Though unique in the New Testament, teleportation is not unprecedented in antiquity. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) documents:

This type of supernatural transference of a person from one place to another is mentioned elsewhere in antiquity (I Kings 18:12; II Kings 2:16; Bel and the Dragon 36; Fragment Targum on Pentateuch, Genesis 28:10: “as soon as our father Jacob lifted up his feet from Beersheeba to go to Haran, the earth shrank before him and he found himself in Haran”; Philostratus, Life of Apollomius of Tyana 8.10; Gospel of the Hebrews [so Origen, On Jeremiah 15:4, and Jerome, On Micah 7:6)]). (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 80)

Like Elijah, Philip is moved by God to his next point of ministry (I Kings 18:12, 46; II Kings 2:16). God transplants Philip back to where he was headed before getting his orders to meet the eunuch as Philip was in the north, called south and transported back north. Azotus is 20 miles up the coast, the next major town north of Gaza (Acts 8:26). Philip is working his way up the coast. In being snatched, Philip makes up for lost time. When he is next seen twenty years later “the evangelist” has continued this trajectory, residing in Caesarea (Acts 21:8).

What literary figures have the ability to teleport? What instances can you think of where someone has disappeared without a trace? Do you believe Acts describes a miracle or simply a strong inner compulsion? Does God still relocate people in miraculous ways? Why is Philip snatched, for his own benefit or the eunuch’s?

Time does not seem to be a pressing issue in Azotus so it can be inferred that it is not out of practicality that Philip is snatched. There are, however, several advantages to this methodology:

• This exit prevents the eunuch from developing any personal attachment to Philip.
• It is a sign that confirms that the eunuch has indeed encountered the supernatural.
• It assures that Philip does not reinterpret his mission and rechart his course. His mission is the same both before and after the encounter; the eunuch is merely a diversion. Philip is not called to open the door to the Gentiles. That will be Paul’s assignment.
• Most importantly, the emphasis is on Spirit as the one doing the work, an important theme in the book of Acts. The Holy Spirit is far more active than Philip in the account. The episode begins as it ends, with divinely encountered outreach and power. The Spirit leads him to the encounter and takes him away.

Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) comments:

The story of Philip’s transportation, which is unique for Luke and indeed unique in the New Testament, points to the stormy return of the prophetic Spirit and the way in which there were ecstatic experiences of it in the primitive community and among the hellenists, for whom the miraculous ‘divine guidance’ of the mission was also connected with the eschatological gift of the Spirit (cf. Acts 13:2ff; Galatians 2:1; Acts 16:6, 19:19, etc.). We might ask whether the original pre-Lukan story of the transportation of Philip to Azotus might not be meant to express a divine legitimation of the preaching of the missionaries from the ‘hellenist’ circle in a semi-Gentile city...Luke has allowed the theme of the transportation to stand as an archaic relic—which no longer accorded with his time—but left out the story which went with it. (Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, 53)

F. Scott Spencer (b.1956) summarizes:

Philip’s boundary-breaking mission in Acts 8 is appropriately capped off by his sudden, miraculous removal from the scene, after baptizing the eunuch, and relocation at Azotus, from where he continues his evangelistic tour up the coast to Caesarea. The Spirit blows where it wills, sweeping the gospel across standard zones of times, space, and society. (Spencer, Acts, 94)

Do you think the Ethiopian missed Philip after he left abruptly? Have you ever arrived at a place without knowing how you got there? Have you ever felt compelled to go somewhere? Is the Holy Spirit guiding your path?

“I like teleporting better - less windy.” - Ando Masahashi (James Kyson, b. 1975) after running with Daphne Millbrook (Brea Grant, b. 1981), on “Heroes” (2006-2010), “Our Father”, December 8, 2008

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

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