The Man of God & The Old Prophet (I Kings 13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hero is anonymous much like Clint Eastwood (b. 1930) in Sergio Leone’s “Dollars Trilogy” (1964-66) or more recently Ryan Gosling (b. 1980) in Drive (2011). His non-name is emphasized as “the Man of God” is repeated 17 times in the text (I Kings 13:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31). Fittingly, the mysterious figure is juxtaposed with an anonymous adversary, the Old Prophet (I Kings 13:11).

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) writes:

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

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

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

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

Gene Rice (b. 1925) adds:

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

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

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

Richard Nelson (b. 1945) summarizes:

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

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

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

Paul R. House (b. 1958) concludes:

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

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

Mission Impossible: Abishai (I Samuel 26:6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an instant, the prey became the hunter. In requesting the honor of killing Saul, the confident warrior offered to eliminate David’s rival with one swift lethal blow, pinning the king to the ground with his spear. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) notes, “Abishai’s sense of urgency...is conveyed by his ‘today’ and his ‘now’ (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 256).” This is not surprising as Abishai is always quick to act (II Samuel 16:9-10, 19:21-23).

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

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

Though it is not surprising that a son of Zeruiah would seek a violent resolution, Abishai’s response is the natural one. Surely the risk of the mission was not taken simply to procure souvenirs. In Abishai’s mind, God had given him the opportunity to instantaneously end the conflict and he ought to seize it. It is David’s response that is counter-cultural. Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) explains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commandment #6: Thou Shalt Not...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Enns (b. 1961) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you truly value life as much as you should?

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

The Cost of Alabaster (Matthew 26:7)

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

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

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

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

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

Martha Jean Mugg Bailey (b. 1957) appraises that alabaster is “a firm, very fine-grained, variety of gypsum, used for statuary and as indoor decorative stone, especially for carved ornamental vases and figurines...The biblical terms translated alabaster...may also refer to marble, although alabaster probably entered Israel from Egypt much earlier than marble was imported from the Greek world (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 39).”

Alabaster containers were ideal receptacles for perfume. W.D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) inform:

According to Pliny [23-79], Nautral History 13.3, ‘perfumes are best kept in alabaster vases’, and archaeology confirms that the stone, often imported from Egypt was frequently made into handleless perfume flasks. The necks were typically long and thin. (Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (International Critical Commentary) Volume III: XIX-XVIII, 444)

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the woman, the alabaster jar was likely a treasured possession and possibly an heirloom. Many have speculated that the woman was saving it for a very special occasion.

Jackie Kendall (b.1950) conjectures:

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

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

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

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

Orpah: Should I Stay or Should I Go? (Ruth 1)

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

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

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

Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) notes:

These names occur nowhere else in the Old Testament; indeed, it is uncertain whether they are Moabite or Hebrew. Although the names’ genuineness need not be doubted, the meaning of Orpah remains an unsolved mystery. (Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 94)

Though the name’s meaning is unknown and it is uncommon, Orpah is actually the name that appears on Oprah Winfrey (b. 1954)’s birth certificate as her aunt Ida plucked it from the pages of the Bible.

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

Inexplicably, Naomi waits until they are already en route to Judah to advise her daughters-in-law to stay in Moab (Ruth 1:6-7). Twice, the mother-in-law appeals to Orpah and Ruth to return home (Ruth 1:8-9, 11-13). From Naomi’s perspective, she has nothing to offer her loved ones as a woman’s security and value came from a husband or sons and she was out of both. While her only option is to return to her homeland, Judah, Naomi realizes that her daughters-in-laws’ prospects are bleak there.

Carol Ann Newsom (b. 1950) and Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) explain:

Not only are Orpah and Ruth Moabites and so members of an already stigmatized nation, their marriages are childless when the sons die ten years later. Supposedly a land of plenty, Moab proves to be sterility and death. (Newsom and Ringe, The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition,85)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditionally, Ruth is lauded while Orpah is maligned. Orpah returns to her people and more importantly reverts to her gods (Ruth 1:15) while Ruth makes an act of faith towards Israel’s God (Ruth 1:16-17). With this choice, Orpah is written out of the biblical text never to be referenced again while Ruth will become the great grandmother of king David (Ruth 4:17) and will ultimately have a biblical book named after her.

André Lacocque (b. 1927) relays this traditional view, writng:

The literal obedience of Orpah to Naomi’s orders has incalculable consequences of future deprivation for Chilion’s family line. Because Orpah has missed the turning point of history in chapter 1 of the narrative, Chilion’s death is a double death. (Lacocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary, 35)

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

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

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

Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943 reminds that the reader is not privy to the rest of Orpah’s story. He counters:

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

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

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

Adele Berlin (b. 1943) concurs:

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

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

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

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

Boaz’s Shoe Deal (Ruth 4:8)

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

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

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

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

The fact that the author described the custom in an aside to the reader indicates that this means of authentication was as foreign to the original readers as it is to its contemporary counterparts.

Kirsten Nielsen (b. 1943) explains:

In order to follow the course of events the reader must be told that there was a particular custom linked to the closing of an agreement in ancient Israel. The custom...is clearly no longer in use, but the audience is to understand that at the time it was legally binding. (Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 82).

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

André Lacocque (b. 1927) describes:

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

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

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

Victor H. Matthews (b. 1950) counters:

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

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

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

In her book Jews and Shoes, Edna Nahshon writes

the ceremonial nature of the transaction makes it clear that the shoe was not used as a barter in a quid pro quo exchange but in a legal/symbolic capacity. Some scholars...link the shoe scene with an Arab form of divorce in which the male removes his shoe and declares “She [the wife] was my slipper; I have cast her off,” and to the Arabic use of na’l (shoe) in the sense of “wife of the husband”...Jacob Nacht [1873-1959], writing in 1915, cites a shoe ceremony practiced among some of the Jews then living in Palestine where it was customary for the bridegroom to send a shoemaker to the bride’s house to prepare shoes for the bride and female family members, this indicating that a date for the wedding had been set. (Nahshon, Jews and Shoes, 4-5)

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

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

Though the practice seems strange, the theoretical framework is not entirely different from modern contracts. In his legal textbook, The Idea of Private Law, Ernest J. Weinrib (b. 1943) writes, “The external nature of action implies a world of shared social meanings...in order to appropriate a person will perform the act that signifies appropriation in that person’s society: in one society the act may be the shoe’s stepping, in another the hand’s seizure or the laying on of a spear (Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law, 104).”

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

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

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

A Scandalous Message (I Corinthians 1:23)

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

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

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

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

The cross is central not only to I Corinthians but to Christianity as a whole. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) comments:

The cross is the key to understanding reality in God’s new eschatological age. Consequently, to enter the symbolic world of the gospel is to undergo a conversion of the imagination, to see all values transformed by the foolish and weak death of Jesus on the cross. (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 31)

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

Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) relays:

The word...has been variously rendered as scandal (C.K. Barrett [1917-2011], Gordon D. Fee [b. 1934]), stumbling block (AV/KJV, NRSV, NIV, Raymond F. Collins [b. 1935], James Moffatt [1870-1944]), or an obstacle they cannot get over (NJB). All of these can be defended. The Greek word occurs only rarely outside of the Septuagint and New Testament, but occurs six times in Matthew and Luke, six times in the Pauline epistles (once each in I Peter, I John and Revelation), i.e. 15 times in the New Testament. Edwin Hatch [1835-1899]-Henry A. Redpath [1848-1908] list 21 occurrences in the Septuagint, where it translates four Hebrew words... (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 171)

Roy E. Ciampa (b. 1958) and Brian S. Rosner (b. 1959) interpret:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ezekiel: Lying Down on the Job (Ezekiel 4:4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce Vawter (1921-1986) and Leslie J. Hoppe (b. 1944) relay another common explanation:

This episode represents Ezekiel as playing in part the role of the scapegoat of Leviticus 16:21-22. Symbolically God lays the guilt...of Israel...upon Ezekiel while he rests on his left side for 390 days. After that (or concurrently with that?) he bears the guilt of the house of Judah while lying on his right side for 40 days. (Vawter and Hoppe, Ezekiel: A New Heart (International Theological Commentary), 42)

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

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

This hardly represents the only theory. Paul M. Joyce (b. 1954) expounds on the “problematic question”:

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

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

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

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

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

Sign-acts might equate to modern street theater. Like producing a mimed parable, the prophet speaks without words. When David Blaine (b. 1973) incased himself in a block of ice in Times Square on November 27, 2000, it was not about a feat of endurance as much as a platform for marketing his brand. While sign-acts have similar benefits they are more than mere publicity stunts as the prophet acts at the request of God.

Walter Eichrodt (1890-1978) philosophizes:

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

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

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

Healing at Bethesda (John 5:2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leon Morris (1914-2006) analyzes:

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

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

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

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

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) describes the site:

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

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

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

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

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

Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) is representative of most commentators when he writes, “John 5:3b-4, concerning an angel stirring the water, are missing from the best manuscripts and reflect popular tradition (Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary, 40).

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

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

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

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

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

Tangling with Ms. Wrong (Proverbs 5:22)

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

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

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

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) interprets:

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

The sage personifies sin by painting a picture of a weaver getting caught in his own web. While the Seductress may seem to entrap the man, the real predator is Sin. To commit a sin is to eventually be caught in one’s own trap. Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) explain, “The writer presents a more prudential approach. Whether or not the sinner is aware of it, the consequences of sin remain with the sinner. Just as a trap catches and holds the unwary animal, so sin will catch and hold the sinner (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 54).”

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

Leo G. Perdue (b. 1946) explains:

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

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

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

The sage’s explanation for the consequences of sin is two-fold. Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) explains that Proverbs 5:10-21 states “that clandestine affairs cannot be hidden from God, who will take action. Retribution is expressed in the poem in two ways: through the direct action of God (Proverbs 5:21), and through the inherent self-correcting action of the universe (Proverbs 5:22). The Bible often affirms both agencies without attempting to bring them into theoretical unity. (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 72)

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

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

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

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

Luke: Beloved Physician (Colossians 4:14)

Which early disciple was a doctor? Luke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacob: Burial and Growth (Genesis 35:4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shmuel Klitsner adds:

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

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

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

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

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

Revelation and Recession (Revelation 22:2)

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

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

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

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) summarizes:

This river apparently goes down the middle of the golden street, and on either side of its banks are trees of life (or is there only one tree?), which bear twelve different kinds of fruit year-round, some each month. (Witherington, Revelation (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 272)

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

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

Though obviously quite similar, John’s account is actually more encouraging than his prophetic predecessor’s. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) writes:

This goes beyond Ezekiel 47:12, where the fruit trees bear fruit every month but not twelve different kinds of fruit...The mention of ‘twelve kinds’ certainly alludes to a twelve-month calendar and especially to the seasons for growing crops. Normally, fruit appears at its proper season, but in the final Eden there will be no seasons, and abundant fruit will be available every month, an incredible promise for those of us who live for seasonal fruit crops. (Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 772)

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

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) expounds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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