Jesus Slept (Mark 4:38)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gideon: When Less is More (Judges 7)

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

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

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

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

Fewer numbers being beneficial is counterintuitive. Military historian Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) notes that Gideon intentionally minimized his numbers from the outset. Though the Midianites had camped in Endor, land endowed to the tribe of Issachar, Gideon did not enlist Issachar. Gabriel rationalizes, “Gideon made no attempt to bring Issachar under arms. To do so would have immediately alerted the enemy. Gideon seems to have chosen to forego the additional manpower to preserve the element of surprise in mobilizing his army (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 171).”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel’s Ouija Board? (Leviticus 8:8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foolish Heart (Psalm 14:1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite being deemed foolish by the Bible, atheism occurs. A 2009 study by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that 1.6% of Americans self identify as atheist. Many atheists are far from whom the world would deem foolish. In the last century, A.J. Ayer (1910–1989), Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986), Albert Camus (1913–1960), Noam Chomsky (b. 1928), Michel Foucault (1926–1984), Ayn Rand (1905–1982), Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) are just a few of the renowned philosophers who were also avowed atheists. By the Bible’s standards, these people were fools.

In your opinion, what is the most foolish thing a person can believe? Why? Is God’s existence self evident? If so, why are there so many atheists?

While the psalmist would no doubt object to the intellectual atheist, that is not what is referenced in this hymn. The song references those who make a claim in their hearts, not with their minds or lips. It is about those who profess to be believers, but whose actions (an extension of true belief) show otherwise. The song refers not to the intellectual atheist who denies the existence of God, but to the practical atheist who lives as if there were no God. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) writes, “In its main theme the psalm is a statement about ‘practical atheism.’ It reflects on one whose conduct is disordered and without focus, because it is not referred to God (Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary, 44).”

“Fool” describes everyone who has no place for God. It is not that the fool does not believe in God but rather that for the fool, God is unnecessary. John H. Eaton (b. 1927) expounds, “The ‘fool’ is everywhere – prominent persons, of hard and ruthless disposition, who act continually as though they were their own sufficient god; that they ‘say in their heart...’ means that in practice this is how they behave, irrespective of what they profess (Eaton, Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation, 93).”

The Psalmist is not lamenting the intellectual atheist but the practical one. The song mourns not for the intellectuals but for the common people. People like us.

Do you profess a belief in God? Do your attitudes reflect that belief? Is God the reference point in your life? Which is preferable, being an avowed atheist or a professing believer who behaves as if God did not exist?

“The Bible says radical things about the stream of consciousness that talks inside us: ‘Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the days’ (Genesis 6:5); ‘All his thoughts are, ‘There is no God’ (Psalm 10:4). This does not only refer to vile lifestyles. It includes the everyday ways our minds operate without reference to God. Functional atheism is our most natural state of mind.” - David Powlison (b. 1950), Speaking Truth in Love: Counsel in Community, 17-18

Aaron’s Magic Rod (Numbers 17:8)

Whose shepherd’s rod grew buds? Aaron’s

After disciplining Korah for leading a rebellion challenging Israel’s leadership (Numbers 16:1-50), God reiterated his decision for the Levites to inherit the priesthood by holding an open casting call (Numbers 17:1-5). Each of Israel’s twelve tribes submitted a personalized rod to be housed over night in the tent of meeting. The location is significant because it was “where I [God] meet with you” (Numbers 17:4 NASB). God would be making the decision as to who would lead the people and the tribe whose rod bloomed would guide the priesthood (Numbers 17:2-5).

In Israel, the rod was much more than a walking stick. It was a symbol of power and authority (Psalm 2:9, 89:32; Isaiah 10:24, 11:4; Ezekiel 20:37). Leaders would even take oaths by means of their staffs. In fact, in Hebrew the word for “staff” (matteh) is the same as “tribe” as a tribe’s chief would lead via the staff.

At God’s invitation, Aaron donated his rod to the cause and it was selected (Numbers 17:3, 8).

Now on the next day Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds and produced blossoms, and it bore ripe almonds. (Numbers 17:8 NASB)

Specifically, the rod bloomed with buds, blossoms and almonds (Numbers 17:8). Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) comments that “the text describes the stages of growth of the plant. It is not clear whether it means all these stages were present simultaneously on the rod or only that the rod went through these stages, but the former is not impossible (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 335).”

Regardless of how the buds developed, they were a miracle. Life sprung forth out of death. In the Iliad, an enraged Achilles swears an oath against Agamemnon exclaiming:

“But I will speak out to you, and will swear thereto a mighty oath: by this staff, that shall never more put forth leaves or shoots since first it left its stump among the mountains, nor shall it again grow green, for the bronze has stripped it on all sides of leaves and bark, and now the sons of the Achaeans carry it in their hands when they act as judges, those who guard the ordinances that come from Zeus; and this shall be for you a mighty oath (Homer [800-701 BCE] & A.T. Murray [1866-1940], Iliad, Book I, 233.)”

Achilles makes an oath with a rod claiming that he will go back on his word when the staff blossoms, which to him was an impossibility. It was an ancient equivalent of “when pigs fly”. Yet in the case of Aaron’s rod, pigs did fly.

After the rod blossomed, Moses had each tribe’s representative withdraw their rod, save for Aaron’s whose was put back in the place of testimony (Numbers 17:9-11). As the heads of each tribe retrieved their own staffs, they were witness to the affirmation of Aaron’s leadership. God had intentionally drawn Aaron’s straw. The blooming staff was a tangible sign of Aaron’s selection and was preserved as such. Hebrews states that the budding rod was even one of the contents of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:4). The preserved rod was to serve as a preventive measure against further rebellion.

When has your authority been validated? Have you ever felt chosen by God? Why was a blossoming rod an appropriate sign in this situation? What sign would you have given to select the priesthood? Did Moses reimburse Aaron for the rod? Did the rod choose the owner or the owner the rod (a very bad Harry Potter reference)?

Throughout the ordeal, Aaron never defended his own honor and left the response to God.

Aaron’s rod had previously demonstrated miraculous powers by transforming into a serpent and swallowing all of Pharaoh’s magicians’s rods who coincidentally had also transformed into serpents (Exodus 7:8-12). Interestingly, both times Aaron’s rod performed supernatural feats, he was not holding it. Perhaps he had to let go of it for it to do its job.

In what areas of your life do you need to “let go and let God”?

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
- Reinhold Niehbuhr (1892-1971), “The Serenity Prayer”

Let Justice Roll Down (Amos 5:24)

Complete: “Let justice roll down like waters, and ________________________________________.” Righteousness like an everflowing stream [or mighty stream] (Amos 5:24)

Amos prophesied in the eighth century before Christ during the reign of Jeroboam II (II Kings 13:13, 14:16, 23, 27, 28, 29, 15:1, 8; 1 Chronicles 5:17; Hosea 1:1; Amos 1:1, 7:9, 10). One of Amos’ major themes is social justice. Even though he categorizes Israel as being unjust, he readily admits that the people have maintained an outward appearance of worship.

Amos argues against such ritualistic religion. In discussing the Day of the Lord (Amos 5:18-27), Amos informs his audience that God will not accept worship from a community that does not value justice and righteousness (Amos 5:21-23). After stating what God does not want but is receiving, Amos erupts with what God does want but is not receiving:

“But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:24 NASB)

Amos 5:24 has become a well know exhortation. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) lauds, “In one masterful stroke Amos summarizes the heart of what God requires (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah - An Exegetical Commentary, 222).”

Amos, a shepherd in his former life (Amos 1:1, 7:14), drew upon imagery he knew well - the importance of water. The prophet often draws upon the calamity of drought to illustrate his points (Amos1:2, 4:7-8, 7:4). While desert streams would often dry up Amos, like Psalms and Ezekiel (Psalms 74:15; Ezekiel 47:1-12), pictures an ever flowing stream.

Amos’s famous claim that God rejects hollow worship is a bold reiteration of Amos 5:14-15 and echoes Isaiah 1:10-17. James Luther Mays (b. 1921) summarizes: “The hatred of Yahweh against the worship of his people–that is the shock of this word. Righteousness in the courts and markets instead of liturgies and offerings in the shrines–that is the Revelation in this word (Mays, Amos: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 106).”

Simply put, God does not want worship from an unjust people. Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) reminds that God “wants worship in spirit and in truth. True worshipers of the Lord, who do worship in spirit and in truth, will bear the fruit of the Spirit in their private lives and in their public conduct. In their society, justice will flow like healing waters (Ezekiel 47:1-12) and righteousness like a perennial wadi (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 432).”

Do you behave differently in church than you do in society? What is the relationship between righteousness and justice? How do your religious beliefs directly help the most poor and needy in your community?

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), a Baptist preacher by trade, alluded to this passage in his legendary “I Have A Dream Speech”. On August 28, 1963, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, King called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. In the speech’s tenth stanza, King exclaimed, “No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Did Dr. King use Amos 5:24 properly? What groups now are as deprived of justice as African-Americans were in 1963? How is your religion helping to eliminate that injustice?

Entertaining Angels (Hebrews 13:2)

Complete: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for ___________________________________________.” Thereby some have entertained angels unawares (Hebrews 13:2)

Hebrews concludes with a series of exhortations. The first is to love one another, philadelphia (Hebrews 13:1) and is followed by a directive to show hospitality, philoxenia (Hebrews 13:2).

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2 NASB)

The text moves from loving inside of the community to demonstrating love outside its borders. The word rendered “hospitality” (philoxenia) literally means a love of strangers. The word is used only here (Hebrews 13:2) and in Romans 12:13 in the New Testament. Kathleen Norris (b. 1947) writes, “True hospitality is marked by an open response to the dignity of each and every person. Henri Nouwen (1932-1996) has described it as receiving the stranger on his own terms, and asserts that it can be offered only by those who ‘have found the center of their lives in their own hearts’ (Norris, Dakota: A Spiritual Geography, 197).”

Hospitality was a primary virtue in the ancient world. Caring for strangers was a solemn responsibility in the Old Testament (Genesis 18:1-8, 19:1-3; Judges 19:19-21; Job 31:32) and practiced by the New Testament church (Acts 10:23, 21:16, 28:7). Hebrews’ mandate fits with Jesus’ teaching that hospitality extends to those who cannot possibly repay it (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 14:1-14).

The ancients placed special emphasis on providing lodging as inns were typically places of ill repute and travelers naturally preferred accommodation in private residences. Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) explains, “Among Jews and Gentiles alike, hospitality to strangers was highly regarded, and even considered a religious obligation. It usually involved lodging as well as food and drink (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 506).”

How would you define hospitality? Who is the most hospitable person you know? Where would you rank hospitality among the virtues?

Hebrews adds an incentive to follow this mandate with a tantalizing potentiality - in demonstrating hospitality, one might be entertaining an angel in disguise (Hebrews 13:2)! Hebrews devotes a section to the cosmic pecking order and includes that humans rank slightly lower than their angelic counterparts (Hebrews 2:5-9). In claiming that a stranger may in actuality be an angel, the author is in effect advising to treat all strangers as if they were God’s direct emissaries because they might well be. The enticement serves the same function as the fable of the king who anonymously inserted his child into the community so that each child would be treated as though they were the prince. People tend to treat someone differently whom they feel is of a superior ilk.

There was precedent for unknowingly entertaining angels. While Gideon (Judges 6:11-21), Manoah (Judges 13:3-20) and Tobit (Tobit 3:17, 5:4-16) all encountered unrecognizable angels, the most notable case is that of Abraham (Genesis 18:2-15). George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) reminds, “The supreme paradigm for hospitality in early Jewish literature was the hospitality of Abraham, shown to his heavenly visitors (Genesis 18:2-15), which is probably alluded to in Hebrews 13:2 (Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews, 435-6).”

Despite the precedence, interacting with disguised angels is a rarity, even in the Bible. With this in mind, F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) comments that the author “is not necessarily encouraging his readers to expect that those whom they entertain will turn out to be supernatural beings traveling incognito; he is assuring them that some of their visitors will prove to be true messengers of God to them, bringing a greater blessing than they receive (Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 371).”

What is the purpose of disguised angelic visits? How common do you feel this experience is? When have you been unfamiliar with someone you have entertained? Do you feel you have ever interacted with an angel? If you did, how would you know?

“Insight is better than eyesight when it comes to seeing an angel.” - Eileen Elias Freeman (b. 1947), The Angels’ Little Instruction Book

When Saul was Paul (Acts 7:58)

Who watched Stephen being stoned? Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul)

Saul, who will eventually evolve into Paul the hero of the second half of the book of Acts, makes an ignominious Biblical debut. Almost as an aside, Saul is implicated in the martyrdom of Stephen as the executioners placed their cloaks at the feet of the future apostle while carrying out their task (Acts 7:58).

When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. (Acts 7:58 NASB)

Like Barnabas (Acts 4:36) and Philip (Acts 6:5) before him, Luke introduces Paul with a cameo appearance before adding him to the main cast. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) applauds, “The introduction in the last words of the verse of a young man called Saul is a fine touch of Luke’s dramatic instinct (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 110).”

At the time of the incident, Saul was an upstart Jew and an eyewitness to the dispute between the Jewish mainstream and the new offshoot in Jerusalem. He is described as a neanias (“young man”), a term that indicates that he was “from about the 24th to the 40th year (BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 534).” Given his involvement in the stoning, it has been suggested that he belonged to the Cilician synagogue that opposed Stephen (Acts 6:9).

Saul is mentioned as the killers laid their cloaks at his feet. The Mishnah (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:3) required a stoning victim to be stripped but here it is the executors who remove their clothing. Like a pitcher removing his warm up jacket before throwing fast balls, this act was to aid them in better hurling stones.

Saul himself did not throw stones as witnesses were to play this role in executions (Deuteronomy 13:9-10, 17:7; Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4). Though Saul guarded the clothes of the executioners, he was far more than a coat check attendant. He was culpable in the action. At the very least, Saul gives approval and not just passing consent (Acts 8:1) and at worst, he supervised. Elsewhere, when Luke uses the expression “at the feet” it carries a connotation of leadership (Acts 4:35, 37). Saul likely aided and abetted in the murder of an innocent man.

This incident of Saul’s life serves as a before picture to show the dramatic change the after snapshot conveys. Saul was a villain. He will lead a systematic inquisition against the early Christian movement, not only seeking followers in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, 9:1, 21, 22:2-4, 26:10) but going door to door in foreign cities as well (Acts 9:1, 14, 21, 22:5; 26:1). After his powerful experience on the Damascus road (Acts 9:1-19), the persecutor would become the persecuted and the target of the type of attacks he once authorized (Acts 9:23-25, 29-30; II Corinthians 11:23-30).

What youthful indiscretion do you most regret? What impact did participating in Stephen’s death have on Paul’s life? Did Paul’s past as a persecutor in any way prepare him for his ministry? When reading of his later sufferings, do you ever feel bad for Paul?

Though much is made of Paul’s involvement in Stephen’s death, he was also present for Stephen’s final speech.

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) surmises:

His [Stephen’s] last words were of forgiveness for his executors, and the close collocation of a reference to Saul suggests that we are meant to infer that the words had some effect on him. The reader is being prepared for what is to follow in chapter 9. (Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries),148)

Perhaps Paul’s sudden conversion may not be as acute as it first appears. Perhaps God had been priming him for his experience on the Damascus road. Perhaps Paul’s ministry was a direct answer to Stephen’s prayer for his executioners.

Though Paul never mentions Stephen in his letters, he does recall the martyr in a speech in Acts (Acts 22:20). Paul never forgot his misguided past. Years later, he lamented that “I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (I Corinthians 15:9 NASB).”

How much impact did his brief encounter with Stephen have on Paul? If it was meaningful, why did Paul never write of it? Has a brief encounter ever left a lasting imprint on your life?

“Sometimes the people whom we’ve know for only a short amount of time have a bigger impact on us than those we’ve known forever.” - Maya Angelou (b. 1928)

Reflecting on a Starry Night (Psalm 8)

>Complete: “When I look at the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained, _________________________________________” What is man that thou art mindful of him? (Psalm 8:3, 4a)

Psalm 8 is a psalm of David which glorifies God the Creator. It is the first hymn of praise in the psalter. It is also the only psalm that is constructed entirely as a direct address to God.’

In Psalm 8, the writer engages in star gazing. Like most humans have been at one time or another, the psalmist is overwhelmed by the grandeur of creation.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him? (Psalm 8:3-4 NASB)

Viewing the magnificence of the creation led the psalmist to consider its Creator. Artur Weiser (1893-1978) comments, “Behind the glorious splendour of the brilliant sky his mind’s eye envisages him who has created that splendour. It is for him, for the Divine Creator, that his song is intended; his first and last thought is directed to the glory of God and to the praise of God (Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 140).”

Next to a seemingly endless creation, any single human, even a king, feels insignificant. The psalmist asks how a God so big can care about something so small. The assumption underlying the psalmist’s question is that God, the creator of the universe, does indeed care for him. Nancy L. deClaissé–Walford (b. 1954) comments, “Psalm 8 certainly contrasts the sovereignty of God with the earthiness of humanity, but the two are inextricably connected (deClaissé–Walford, Introduction to the Psalms: A Song from Ancient Israel, 69).”

When has admiring God’s creation led your thoughts to the Creator? Why does the God of the universe care for you? Do you think the celestial beings serve only as a backdrop to life on earth to remind us of our finitude or are there other reasons for it?

The Psalmist did not have all of the scientific data we do today to realize the scope of what he saw. He did not realize the sun was merely the closest of over one billion stars and 109 times bigger than Earth. He did not realize that the moon was a satellite of the earth, ¼ of its size. He did not realize that earth was merely the third of nine planets in our solar system. Yet, even without these facts, he realized he was small. Very small. And that God was very big, at the very least bigger than creation.

Though modern humans know more about outer space than the Psalmist, he knew enough to realize that the God of the universe cared for him. Do you?

When have you felt insignificant? Do you remember that the creator of the universe cares for you (Psalm 8:4, I Peter 5:7)?

“Saint Augustine [354-430] said that Jesus loved each person he ever met as if there were no else in all the world to love, and he loved all as he loved each. I have never known which aspect of Jesus is more incredible, his capacity for individual affection or the amazing inclusiveness of his love.” - John R. Claypool (1930-2005), The First to Follow: The Apostles of Jesus, 1

A Fish Story (John 21:11)

How many fish did the disciples catch when Jesus told them to put their nets in again? 153 (John 21:11)

After his resurrection, Jesus manifested while seven of his disciples were fishing on the Sea of Tiberius a.k.a. Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-3). It had already been a long day and the experienced fisherman had come up empty (John 21:3). Jesus, whose identity was concealed from the disciples, instructed his charges to cast their nets on the right side of their boat (John 21:6). The disciples complied and the action resulted in the recognition of Jesus (John 21:7) and a massive haul of 153 fish (John 21:11).

Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. (John 21:11, NASB)

The odd detail of 153 fish is so precise that it has long fascinated commentators. It is the only time the number appears in the Bible. Many have followed the logic of C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) who wrote that “the number is significant or it would not have been recorded; it is improbable that it represents the fortuitous but precise recollection of an eye witness (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 581).”

For many, the detail is simply too specific to be insignificant. Some suggest that it indicates that the author was present for the catch. Others have gone to great lengths to find meaning in the number itself. Here are a few examples:

• While commenting on Ezekiel 47, Jerome (347-420) claimed that the Greeks had identified exactly 153 species of fish in the sea (Commentary Ezekiel, PL 25:474C). This would make the fish the symbolic equivalent of the holistic and diverse nature of the salvation Jesus offered (Revelation 5:9). Not only has modern science obviously debunked the claim itself but it appears the remark was never valid. Jerome cites the naturalist writer Oppian but there is no evidence that Oppian ever made the assertion. In contrast, Pliny (23-79) stated that there were 74 varieties of fish (Gary M. Burge [b. 1952], John: The NIV Application Commentary, 585). At the very least, the belief that there were 153 species of fish was never widespread.
  
• In the 19th century, Lt. Col. R. Roberts calculated exactly 153 individuals who were specifically blessed by Jesus in the four canonical gospels (E. W. Bullinger [1837-1913], Number in Scripture, 276.)
  
• The mathematician Archimedes (287-212 BCE), in his treatise On the Measurement of the Cycle, used the whole number ratio 153:265 to accurately approximate the irrational ratio square root of 3, “the measure of the fish”. As such, 153 was known from the time of Archimedes as “the measure of the fish” or the vesica.
  
• Many have looked to the number’s unique properties and its connection to the number 17 for inspiration. Gregory the Great (540-604) found meaning in the fact that 153 was the result of 17 multiplied by 3 and again by 3 (17x3²). Augustine of Hippo (354-430) adds that 153 is the triangular of 17 (Tractate Evangelium Joannes122.8). This means that it is the sum of the integers from 1 to 17 inclusive. This number can be expressed as a triangle. 153 also has the rare property that it is the sum of the cubes of its own digits (i.e. 153 = 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3). It cannot be denied that 153 is a unique number but how does it relate to the text?
  
• Others have found meaning in gematria, a system by which numerical value is assigned to a word or phrase. Amazingly, the words “fish” and “Simon” (a fisher of men) equate to 153 in Greek. In Hebrew, “church of love” also adds to 153. In 1958, John Adney (J.A.) Emerton (b. 1928) suggested that the gematria correlated to Ezekiel 47 which predicts that it “will come about that fishermen will stand beside it; from Engedi to Eneglaim there will be a place for the spreading of nets. Their fish will be according to their kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea, very many (Ezekiel 47:10 NASB).” Engedi has a numeric value of 17 and Eneglaim 153 (Emerton, Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958) 86-89).
  
• A more advanced (or convoluted depending upon your perspective) version of combining math and the Bible was developed in 1975 called theomatics which was based upon gematria and isopsephia. Theomatically, fish related items have a numeric value based on the number 153. For example, “fishes” (153 x 8), “the net” (153 x 8), “multitude of fishes” (153 x 8 x 2), and “fishers of men” (153 x 14) all have numeric values divisible by 153.

The discussion of the significance of 153 is interesting if not always plausible. While some theories are certainly fishier than others, one thing is for certain: The disciples caught a miraculous number of fish.

Who took the time to count the fish? Do you think the specific number 153 has meaning? Why? Why not?

The story of the miraculous catch in John (John 21:1-11) is often juxtaposed with a similar fish story at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry presented in Luke’s gospel (Luke 5:1-11). In Luke, the disciples’ net breaks and the fish are lost (Luke 5:6). In John, after studying at the feet of the master, they are able to bring in and count the fish (John 21:11) - those perplexing 153 fish.

If there is meaning to the number, it cannot be said with any certainty. D. A. Carson (b. 1946) summarizes that “if the Evangelist has some symbolism in mind connected with the number 153, he has hidden it well (Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 673).”

Perhaps the simplest explanation is the best - the disciples caught 153 fish and were so impressed that they counted the haul. Leon Morris (1914-2006) reminds, “Fishermen..have always loved to preserve the details of unusual catches (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 764).”

Have you ever been fishing? If you caught 100+ fish in one day, would you count them? What is your best fish story?

“Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.” - Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Deborah: Right Man for The Job (Judges 4)

Who was the only woman to judge Israel? Deborah.

After the conquest of Israel, charismatic leaders or “judges” periodically surfaced to lead Israel. Deborah is the book’s third major judge, emerging at a time when Israel was experiencing a spiritual and moral decline (Judges 4:1-5:31). She is also described as a prophetess (Judges 4:4) who held court beneath a palm tree (Judges 4:5).

Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. (Judges 4:4-5 NASB)

Deborah’s tenure was a success that resulted in forty years of peace (Judges 5:31). The apex of her rule was convincing Barak to lead a successful counterattack against the forces of Jabin king of Canaan and his military commander Sisera (Judges 4:6-24). This contingent had wreaked havoc on Israel for twenty years (Judges 4:2-3).

Susan Niditch (b. 1950) explains, “Deborah is a prophet, that is, one capable of mediating between God and human beings, and is perceived of having gifts of divination and charisma. She is a conduit to God, a vessel for divine communications of various kinds. It is this inspired oracular gift that allows her to “judge” leading on and off the battlefield (Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 65).”

The only other background detail that the text provides is that Deborah was the “wife of Lappidoth” (Judges 4:4 NASB). In Hebrew, this can also be read “woman of fire” or “woman of torches”.

Douglas A. Knight (b. 1943) and Amy-Jill Levine (b. 1956) expound:

The Hebrew for “wife of Lappidoth,” eshet lapidot, can also be translated “woman of flames.” The words for “wife of” and “woman of” are the same, and there is no Mr. Lappidoth featured in the text. Nor is there any fellow named Lappidoth found elsewhere in the Bible. (Knight and Levine, The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us, 60)

This interpretation also provides a word play as Deborah is the torch that sets general Barak (whose name means “lightning”) on fire. J. Clinton McCann (b. 1951) states succinctly, “Deborah as ‘Torch Lady’ would be quite appropriate (McCann, Judges (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 52).”

Have you ever seen anyone who arose at the right time to lead a previously divided people? Do you think that Deborah’s gender played a role in Barak’s hesitation to follow her advice? How significant is her gender to her story?

Deborah was the only woman to serve in the capacity as “judge”, which at the time equated to the highest public office in the land. Her gender is stressed throughout.

Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) explains:

Both the story and the song emphasize the fact that Deborah is a woman. The story tells us that she was a prophetess-woman, adding the word “woman,” ’iššah, when the female noun “prophetess,” nebî’ah, already conveys that information. She is called “Lapidot”-woman or Lapidot’s woman, again repeating the word “woman,” ’ēšet...And the song stresses that Deborah was a “mother in Israel.” The femaleness is neither hidden nor incidental: it is an integral part of the story. The motherhood of this “mother in Israel” goes beyond biology. It describes her role as counselor during the days before the war, and it indicates her role in preserving the heritage of Israel, in her case by advising in battle. (Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories, 49-50)

As Frymer-Kensky alludes, Deborah describes herself as “mother to Israel” (Judges 5:7 NASB). Deborah not only does not conceal her femininity, but stresses it. For her, it is an asset, not a detriment to her ability to lead.

Are there times when a woman is not only adequate to lead but better suited? During what circumstances? Could you vote for a woman president? If a woman was equipped and appointed to lead Israel, God’s people, can a woman lead a church, also God’s people?

Moses’ Varied Background (Exodus 18:1)

Where was Moses’ father-in-law a priest? Midian (Exodus 18:1)

Moses lived 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7). His life can be divided neatly into three forty year increments: living in Egypt (Exodus 2:5-10; Acts 7:23), living in Midian (Exodus 2:15-22; Acts 7:30), and wandering in the wilderness whilst leading the Hebrews (Exodus 7:7; Acts 7:36).

Moses began life in Pharaoh’s court, having been adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:5-10). After years, presumably raised as an Egyptian in Egypt’s royal family, he began to feel empathy for his native Hebrews and impetuously murdered an Egyptian taskmaster (Exodus 2:11-14).

Wanted for murder, Moses fled Egypt and spent his exile in relative obscurity in Midian (Exodus 2:15). Midian was one of Abraham’s sons from his second marriage (Genesis 25:2, 4). It was in Midian that Moses’ life was most “normal”. He married the priest’s daughter, Zipporah, and had two children (Exodus 2:21-22, 18:2-4).

Though Moses likely felt his life would end in Midian, at the age of eighty God called him into service and back to Egypt to evacuate his people.

Did Moses’ time in Midian prepare him for his life’s calling of leading the Exodus? How important is having a clear cut nationality? How do you define yourself in terms of ethnicity and nationality? How do you feel Moses would have described his ethnicity and nationality? Would it have varied at different junctures?

At no point in his life did Moses ever live with his own countrymen in a land they owned or even possessed a permanent dwelling. He was perpetually a stranger in a strange land. Moses answering the question of where he was from would likely have resembled modern answers of children born to missionaries and military personnel who have traveled the globe never really having lived amongst their ancestors’ people.

Further complicating matters is the fact that Moses’ own Hebrew culture had not yet developed its ethnicity. In his provocatively titled book Moses the Egyptian, Jan Assmann (b. 1938) writes, “What we would today call their ‘ethnicity’ or ‘cultural identity,’ which would set the Israelites apart from their Egyptian host culture, did not yet exist because the construction of this identity was precisely the function of the Law (Assmanm, 70).” And the Law had yet to be written.

This does not mean that Hebrews did not recognize themselves as being unique. Moses’ biggest criticism from his family came ostensibly because of his wife. While scholars are divided as to whether this wife was Zipporah or a second wife, Moses’ siblings were alarmed in part because he had married a “Cushite” (Numbers 12:1-2). (For my more detailed analysis of this story, read this previous post.) God intervened in the matter and sided with Moses (Numbers 12:4-9).

Whether or not Moses’ wife’s nationality was the real issue, it cannot be denied that Moses married someone whom his siblings designated as “other”. It is perhaps not surprising, that Moses, who never quite seemed to have a home, seemingly had no problems marrying someone so different from himself.

What is your stance on interracial relationships? Why do you believe as you do? How do you think your own heritage has influenced your views on the matter?

“I hope that people will finally come to realize that there is only one 'race' - the human race - and that we are all members of it.” - Margaret Atwood (b. 1939)

The Bible’s Longest Verse (Esther 8:9)

What is the longest verse in the Bible? Esther 8:9 (85 words)

Though the Bible had been divided into sections for centuries, the chapters and verses that are in modern Bibles were not separated until the 16th century. Robert Estienne (1503-1559) was the first to print a Bible that was broken into standard numbered verses. His New Testament was first printed in 1551 and a Hebrew Bible followed in 1571.

Of the Bible’s 31,173 verses, Esther 8:9 is the longest in most all English translations. Esther 8:9 reads:

So the king’s scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language. (Esther 8:9 NASB)

The verse consists of 43 Hebrew words, making it the longest verse in the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text as well. Significantly longer versions of I Samuel 11 were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Though not canonical, several verses of I Samuel 11 from these sources surpass Esther 8:9 in length.

In English, Esther 8:9 is significantly longer than its original Hebrew, typically spanning between 70-90 words. In the King James Version (KJV) it consists of 90 words as compared to 86 (ASV), 81 (NASB) and 80 (ESV) in other prominent word-for-word translations. In thought-for-translations, the text is cleaned up and reduced further. For instance, Esther 8:9 is comprised of 71 words in the NIV and cut down to 55 in the CEV.

Though you have likely never read a Bible that was not divided into verses, the concept of doing so has always faced some criticism.

Do you like the division of the Bible into verses? Why might it not be a good idea?

Esther 8:9-12 is a reversal of Esther 3:12-15 which features a report of the genocidal edict that Haman issued through the authority of King Ahasuerus. It is a turning point in Esther but is not especially significant to the Bible as a whole. Likewise, Revelation 20:4, the longest verse in the New Testament (68 words in the KJV) is also of no particular note.

As such, the length of a verse is not is not as significant as its depth. There are times where, as Dr. Seuss (1904-1991) advises, “Shorth is better than length.”

What do you feel is the most important verse in the Bible? What verses do you feel have far more depth than length? Do you know of anyone whose depth of life exceeded its length?

“It is not length of life, but depth of life.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

Adoniram The Slave Driver (I Kings 4:6)

Who was in charge of the forced (slave) labor under David, Solomon and Rehoboam? Adoniram

Adoniram served in King Solomon’s court (I Kings 4:6; 5:14). Near the close of the reign of Solomon’s predecessor, David (II Samuel 20:24), and at the outset of the reign of his successor, Rehoboam (I Kings 12:18), Adoniram’s office was held by Adoram. Since Adoram seems to be a contraction of Adoniram, it is generally believed that the same person held the office during all the three reigns. As such, Adoniram was a mainstay of the royal court.

Adoniram’s position is described in various translations as managing the “forced labor” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, RSV), “labor force” (NKJV, NLT), “slave labor” (MSG), “the tribute” (KJV), and “men subject to taskwork” (ASV). Officially, Adoniram was the government’s head of the department of forced labor. Adoniram was quite literally a slave driver.

Israel had quite a pool of slaves to draw from. All people conquered by Israel in the conquest of the Promised Land were subject to forced labor (Deuteronomy 20:11). While this was originally not intended to include Canaanites, the mandate eventually was extended to encompass them as well (Joshua 16:10; 17:13; Judges 1:28-35). Both David (I Chronicles 22:2, 15) and Solomon (I Kings 5:13-16; I Kings 9:15-22; II Chronicles 8:7-10) made regular use of slave labor.

Given Adoniram’s longevity, Martin J. Mulder (b. 1923) concludes, “It can be said with some level of certainty that, in view of his long record of service, Adoniram must have been a good organizer. Though ironfisted, he was of value for the construction and glory of the new state and dynasty (Mulder, 1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 168).”

What is the longest you have held a single job? Who do you know that has longest tenure in their job? Do you think longevity is indicative of competency?

The only act of Adoniram that the Bible records is his final one (I Kings 12:18). Solomon’s son and successor, Rehoboam had foolishly taken the advice of his young peers over his elder advisors and consequently alienated the overworked inhabitants of Israel’s north (I Kings 12:3-15) In yet another tactical error, the king dispatched Adoniram, his veteran superintendent of forced labor, to the north in the midst of a labor dispute (I Kings 12:18). The taskmaster was the worst possible person for the task and not surprisingly his presence served to add fuel to the fire. Adoniram was stoned, Rehoboam fled (I Kings 12:18) and the nation would be forever divided.

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) explains:

What an act of obtuseness! Adoniram is clearly the image of the worst oppressive impulses of the regime, a lightning rod to attract whatever hostility and resistance are still latent in the North. Adoniram is murdered by the crowd of resisters, surely an act commensurate with the violence of Moses against the Egyptian foreman, also an agent of forced labor (I Kings 12:18, see Exodus 2:11-12). In both cases the royal official is killed in the interest of symbolic resistance against an entire regime and its practices of exploitation. (Brueggemann, Solomon: Israel’s Ironic Icon of Human Achievement (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament), 152)

Adoniram lived through the rise of the kingdom and was a loyal servant. He saw the glory of Israel’s united kingdom and one of the few personal benefits to his premature death is that he was not forced to witness the fall of the kingdom for which he had worked so diligently. Though forced labor does resurface in the Old Testament, Adoniram’s position is never again referenced.

Adoniram was killed due to his employer’s imprudence. He was put into a position in which he had no chance of success.

Have you ever been assigned a task you were incapable of completing? Did you attempt it anyway? Have you ever assigned such a task? Do you think God would ever designate an impossible chore?

“God does not call the qualified, He qualifies the called.” - popular Christian aphorism

Stoning Stephen (Acts 6:5)

How was Stephen killed? He was stoned to death

Stephen enters the Biblical text by being elected as one of the first seven deacons (Acts 6:5). It appears he stood out from his peers as he is listed first and is characterized in language typically reserved for prophets - “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5 NASB)”.

The nascent Christian movement was growing rapidly (Acts 6:7) and Stephen’s talents (Acts 6:5, 8) placed him at the forefront. One group’s success is another’s threat and Stephen faced opposition from a contingent of Disapora Jews from the Synagogue of Freedmen (Acts 6:8). Unable to handle the truth or refute it, they convinced some men to serve as false witnesses claiming that Stephen spoke “blasphemous words against Moses and against God (Acts 6:11 NASB).”

Though the resistance began with only a small party it escalated, a riot ensued (Acts 6:14) and the incident culminated with an audience before the high priest (Acts 7:1). Throughout the charges, Stephen remained silent until he faced the high priest and when he finally spoke, he delivered one of the longest speeches in the book of Acts (Acts 7:2-53). The filibuster reviewed “salvation history” (heilsgeschichte) and concluded with the acknowledgment that the religious establishment had a long history of persecuting prophets (Acts 7:52).

The trial transformed into a lynching and Stephen was stoned (Acts 7:58-60), a common method of death in such situations (II Chronicles 24:20-22; Philo (20 BCE-50 CE), Special Laws 1.54-57; Josephus (37-100), Antiquities 14.2.1). Midrash clearly outlines the protocol for stoning (Midrash Sanhedrin 6.1-4) and in the case of Stephen, it was not followed aside from holding the execution outside court in conjunction with Leviticus 24:14. This is because Stephen was a victim of lynching, not capital punishment.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) explains:

The stoning makes clear that they thought Stephen was blaspheming. It should be noted that nothing is said about the high priest offering a verdict, no formal sentence is announced, and nothing here suggests anything other than a lynching, an act of violent passion. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 276)

Stephen’s innocense is highlighted throughout the account. The text claims that “all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel (Acts 6:15 NASB).” As he died, the deacon experienced a theophany (divine appearance) uttering among his famous last words - “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56 NASB).” After asking Jesus to take him and forgive his persecutors, Stephen died (Acts 7:59-60).

Why was Stephen killed? The charge against Stephen was the same Jesus faced - was the rationale the same? Is anyone today in danger of dying for similar reasons? Should contemporary Christians pose a threat to the religious establishment?

Stephen’s death is a turning point in Christian history and the book of Acts. Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) analyzes, “Stephen is a pivotal figure: he anticipates the future success and conflict of the mission among the nations, but his death also puts a close to the Jerusalem narrative (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 112).”

The lynching made Stephen the first Christian martyr. The word “martyr” comes from the Greek martyros meaning “witness”. The man who was murdered because of false witnesses remains a witness centuries after his death. If Stephen’s death was intended to be a deterrent for conversion, the action failed. As Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) wrote, “The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins (Kierkegaard, Papers and Journals, 352).”

To what lengths are you willing to go to for your faith? Are you willing to die? Are you grateful that you don’t live in a region where you need to? Do you respect others who die for their faith whatever that faith may be?

“The prophet and the martyr do not see the hooting throng. Their eyes are fixed on the eternities.” - Benjamin Cardozo (1870-1938)

Don’t Let The Sun Go Down (Ephesians 4:26)

Complete: “Do not let the ___ go down on your anger.” Sun (Ephesians 4:26)

The second half of the book of Ephesians is devoted to refining the believer’s conduct in the world (Ephesians 4:1-6:24). Amongst Paul’s practical advise to his former congregation is the charge to not go to bed angry (Ephesians 4:26).

Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity. (Ephesians 4:26-27 NASB)

The admonition to be angry yet not to sin is a quotation from Psalm 4:5. In the context of Ephesians, Paul is speaking to those who are in a loving community (Ephesians 4:2, 25). When living in community, anger with one another is virtually inevitable. Andrew D. Lester (1939-2010) writes, “Pauline theology recognizes and assumes that Christians, like all human beings, are bound to experience anger (Lester, The Angry Christian: A Theology for Care and Counseling, 144).”

As such, Paul sets a limitation to anger. At some point, anger must be relinquished. As one of American statesman Colin Powell (b. 1937) ’s “13 Rules of Leadership” reads - “Get mad, then get over it.”

The reason for this restriction is clearly stated. One must control anger or else it will control the person angered. If anger is held for too long, it will give the devil a “foothold” (Ephesians 4:27 NIV).

What constructive ways do you deal with your anger - how do you let it go? What is the maddest you have ever been? Have you ever gone to bed angry? Do you feel anger is a sin?

Paul’s advice is not to avoid anger but rather to control it. Anger, if exercised properly, is not a sin. In fact, most read Paul’s assertion to “be angry” (Ephesians 4:26 NASB) as a command rather than a condition. There are some situations in which it would be sinful not to be angry.

Harold W. Hoehner (1935-2009) explains:

“It is necessary to acknowledge that anger is not intrinsically sinful...God expresses anger. What causes God to be angry? When wrong has been done against a person or against God himself. However, when God is angry, he is always in control of his anger. Unlike God, however, people have a tendency to allow anger to control them. Hence, the second command, “do not sin” is necessary. (Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, 621)

In what situation is anger the appropriate response? Have you ever experienced “righteous indignation”?

“Anger, if not restrained, is frequently more hurtful to us than the injury that provokes it.” - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BCE-65 C)

Barsabbas: Always a Bridesmaid (Acts 1:23)

When Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place, who was the losing candidate? Barsabbas Justus

While the disciples were waiting for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:7-8), they occupied their time by electing a new member to fill Judas’ spot in The Twelve (Acts 1:15-26). The criteria for the job was longevity, someone who had been with Jesus since his ministry’s incipience (Acts 1:21-22). As such, the candidates were drawn from Jesus’ wider circle of followers (Luke 10:1-17).

Whether only two candidates qualified or the pool was somehow reduced, two finalists were chosen - “Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus)” and Matthias (Acts 1:23 NASB). (The fact that the author felt the need to supply so many names to identify Barsabbas is a clear tip off he was not going to get the job.) The final decision was made via prayer (Acts 1:24) and casting lots (Acts 1:25-26), a traditional method of determining God’s will in Judaism (Leviticus 16:8; Numbers 26:55-56, 33:54; Joshua 19:1-40; I Chronicles 26:12-16; Jonah 1:7-8; Micah 2:5). The lot fell to Matthias (Acts 1:26).

This incident marks Barsabbas’ only appearance in the New Testament. There is a Judas Barsabbas who appears later in Acts and many have conjectured that the two were brothers (Acts 15:22). According to Eusebius (263-339), Joseph Barsabbas was among the seventy Jesus sent out (Luke 10:1; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1.12). Otherwise little is known of Barsabbas.

Some have speculated that given his later prominence, Paul was God’s choice to be the twelfth disciple and that the eleven remaining disciples jumped the gun in electing a new member.

Were the disciples correct in trying to reconstitute The Twelve? When have you been passed over? How did it make you feel? How do you think Barsabbas felt about this rejection?

Twice Barsabbas could have been selected as one of The Twelve and twice he was overlooked. He lost out on what was presumably a dream job early and when a vacancy became open, the carrot was dangled before him again, providing a glimmer of hope. Just as the light shone in, the door was once again slammed in his face. The second time, he knew how close he was as he made the shortest of short lists. Barsabbas faced rejection publicly amongst his peers and ostensibly the rejection came from God. And no explanation was given. Presuming the disciples’ prayer was answered (Acts 1:24-25), Barsabbas was left knowing only that his exclusion was God’s will.

Barsabbas nor his career is ever referenced again in the New Testament. (Neither is Matthias for that matter.) Tradition tells us that Barsabbas did not become bitter or attempt to manipulate his way into a role of leadership. Papias of Hierapolis (60-130) preserves an oral tradition that states Barsabbas drank poison without harm (Mark 16:18) and the apocryphal Acts of Paul relates that Barsabbas was among a Christian group imprisoned by Nero until a vision of the newly martyred Paul appeared to the emperor, precipitating their immediate release.

Barsabbas could have responded in many ways to his rejection. In his case, it truly was an honor just to be nominated. If tradition is correct, Barsabbas demonstrated the characteristics that merited his being a finalist for the position. It appears that Barsabbas never lost sight of his calling even though he was not called to be one of The Twelve.

What are you called to do? Have you ever held high hopes for a position only to be placed in a less prominent slot? How did you respond? What does your response to rejection say about you?

“There's nothing like rejection to make you do an inventory of yourself.” - James Lee Burke (b. 1936)

Goshen: What Difference...(Exodus 8:22)

What is the name of the area in Egypt in which the Israelites lived? Goshen (Exodus 8:22)

Indebted to the help provided by Joseph, Pharaoh graciously granted the Israelites their own Egyptian settlement, a place called Goshen.

You shall live in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children’s children and your flocks and your herds and all that you have. (Genesis 45:10 NASB)

It has been speculated that Goshen was somewhat isolated from Egypt proper based upon Pharaoh’s comment that “every shepherd is loathsome to the Egyptians (Genesis 46:34 NASB).” Colin J. Humphreys (b. 1941) speculates that the Israelites “lived in their own separate geographic location...which almost certainly was not in the prime property market area next to the highly desirable waters of the Nile, which the Egyptians would have kept for themselves. Thus the ancient Israelites were probably living a few miles away from the Nile and its main branches–close enough to where the Egyptians lived to walk to work, but far away enough away to be a distinct community (Humphreys, The Miracles of Exodus: a Scientist Reveals the Extraordinary Natural Causes Underlying the Biblical Miracles, 146).”

Although not uncontested, in 1885 Swiss Egyptologist Edouard Henri Naville (1844-1926) identified Goshen as the 20th nome of Egypt, located in the eastern Delta, and known as Gesem or Kesem during the Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt (672-525 BCE).

Goshen would become significant several centuries after it was bequeathed to the Israelites when a new ruler who “knew not Joseph” assumed power (Exodus 1:8 KJV). The Egyptians had forgotten the blessing the Israelites had one been and perceiving their increasing numbers as a threat, enslaved them (Exodus 1:9-14).

In the process of liberating the Israelites, God famously sent ten plagues upon Egypt (Exodus 7:14-11:10). The only place unaffected by the disasters was Goshen (Exodus 8:22, 9:26). God spared Goshen while the rest of Egypt suffered. Goshen stood out like a sore thumb or perhaps more accurately as a healthy thumb in a sea of sore thumbs.

Though no longer prevalent, “Land O Goshen” entered the Southern lexicon as an exclamation of amazement or frustration presumably due to the unique qualities it displayed in Exodus.

Have you ever been in an area that was inundated with inclement weather while it was sunny just a few miles down the road? Why does God not always give his followers the reprieve he gave the Israelites?

These were special circumstances. The dramatic difference between Goshen and the rest of Egypt left no doubt as to the reason for the calamity. The enslaved Israelites received sanctuary

While modern day believers may not always receive a reprieve from calamity (Matthew 5:45), they should in some ways be set apart from the world around them.

If you are a believer, in what ways does this make you different than those who do not believe? What difference does your faith make?

Please Don’t Give (Exodus 36:6)

When did people give so much they had to be told to stop? When the tabernacle was being constructed (Exodus 36:6)

In the era between the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land, the Israelites were nomads. In the interim, God outlined specific plans as to the creation of a tabernacle, a portable representation of the divine presence (Exodus 25:9; Acts 7:44). The Israelites’ God would not merely reign distantly from the heavens but was willing to move with them in their uncertainty in the wilderness.

As with all building projects, this venture needed capital. Amazingly, the Israelites gave so much that Moses actually needed to issue an edict to restrain the giving! (Exodus 36:6)

So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, “Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary.” Thus the people were restrained from bringing any more. (Exodus 36:6 NASB)

Over giving was and is a highly unusual problem (and one as pastor I would like to have). Reuven Hammer (b. 1932) quips, “This may be the only instance in the entire history of fund-raising that the campaign was so oversubscribed that it had to be brought to a halt. Never before or after did we have to be told to stop giving (Hammer, Entering Torah: Prefaces to the Weekly Torah Portion, 133).”

Has a religious group ever said no to money? Why did Moses halt the cash flow? Should he have ceased this activity? Could he have not saved the funds for a rainy day? Why did the Israelites give so freely?

The Israelites gave because their hearts were moved to do so (Exodus 35:29). The campaign was successful and the tabernacle was built to specification (Exodus 40:17-19). It was erected exactly one year after leaving Egypt (Exodus 40:17). Throughout much of the preceding year, the Israelites rebelled against Moses (and ostensibly against God), but the building of the tabernacle was one instance where the community united together for a common good.

What projects have you witnessed that united a body of believers? Where do you give? Can you be accused of giving too much?

“Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” - II Corinthians 9:6 NASB

The Church’s 1 Foundation (I Corinthians 3:11)

Complete: For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid ______________.” Which is Jesus

Paul wrote to a divided Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:10-12, 3:3). Its members exhibited varying allegiance to Paul, Apollos, Cephas [Peter] and Christ (I Corinthians 1:12). Paul drew upon the imagery of construction to help ease the tension. He drew them back to the bedrock:

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 3:11 NASB)

Paul reminded the Corinthians that their allegiance was owed to Jesus and not any particular minister as Christ is the foundation. The analogy has stood through the centuries. The Catholic Church teaches, “Often, too, the Church is called the building of God (I Corinthians 3:9). The Lord compared himself to the stones which the builders rejected, but which was made into the corner stone (Matthew 21:42; cf. Acts 4:11; I Peter 2:7; Psalm 118:22). On this foundation the church is built by the apostles (cf. I Corinthians 3:11) and from it the church receives solidarity and unity (The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition, 216).”

When updating a building, it is essential to do so in deference to the structure’s foundation. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) summarizes, “The superstructure of the building (church) must conform to the pattern of that foundation. Otherwise it would be crooked and unstable (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 54).” Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) adds strongly, “Any other foundation would not merely make the building precarious, it would cease to exist as that building (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 310).”

What is the foundation of your spiritual belief structure? What are the non-negotiables of your faith?

The division that the Corinthians church experienced two thousand years ago has characterized much of Christian history. In dealing with conflict, Paul points back to the foundation, the unifying principle - namely Jesus.

If you believe that a man died, was raised and because of that you have been granted salvation, what other common ground is needed? Are there any branches of Christianity’s tree that should not be able to cooperate with one another? If so, under what circumstances?

“Christ was called the foundation-stone (I Corinthians 3:11) because he bears everything and holds it.” - John Chrysostom (347-407), “My Father’s Working Still”

What to Pray? (Romans 8:26)

Who intercedes for us when we do not know how to pray as we ought? The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26)

In Romans, Paul readily admits that there are times in which the Christian does not know what to pray (Romans 8:26). He then encourages the reader by informing that help is readily available:

In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27 NASB)

Paul was so adept at prayer that his prayers led to an out of body experience (II Corinthians 12:1-4) yet even Paul confessed to not always knowing what to pray.

In these instances, the Holy Spirit intercedes on behalf of the intercessor (Romans 8:26-27). The word used for “intercede” in Romans 8:26, huperentugchano, is a compound word comprised of huper (“over” or “on behalf of”) and entugchano ( “to turn to” or “to appeal”). It is a legal term used to express what an attorney does when speaking on behalf of a client and carries with it a connotation of “to make petition” or “to plead on behalf of another”. As the word is only used in Romans 8:26, it is never used of humans but rather only of the Holy Spirit. A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) explains that huperentugchano is “a picturesque word of rescue by one who ‘happens on’..one who is in trouble and ‘in his behalf’ pleads with ‘unuttered groanings’... or with ‘sighs that baffle words (Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, 377).’” God is like a seasoned dentist who can interpret even our “groanings” when no one else can.

When have you wanted to pray but not known what to pray for? Why do we not know what to pray?

One of the keys to prayer is to align the intercessor’s desires with God’s. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus prays “your [God’s] will be done” (Matthew 6:10 NASB). Praying God’s will is often easier said than said as sometimes we do not know what God’s will is. Commenting on Romans 8:26-27, Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) reminds “our failure to know God’s will and consequent inability to petition God specifically and assuredly is met by God’s Spirit, who himself expresses to God those intercessory petitions that perfectly match the will of God (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT), 526).”

Our uncertainty when praying does not mean we should not pray or even that our prayers will be ineffective. Stormie Omartian (b. 1943) simplifies, “The Holy Spirit guides our prayers so that they are aligned with the will of God, and that makes them far more powerful and effective (Omartian, The Power of a Praying Life).”

What situations have you been in where you honestly did not know God’s will? Did you sense the Spirit interceding on your behalf?

“We don’t have to know how to pray in order to pray; we just need to know whom we seek.” - Janet Holm McHenry (b. 1951), Daily PrayerWalk: Meditations for a Deeper Prayer Life), p. 120