Josiah: Death of a King (II Chronicles 35)

Whose army killed King Josiah on the plain of Megiddo? The army of Pharaoh Neco of Egypt (II Chronicles 35:20-24)

Josiah was a religious reformer and the last good king Judah would ever have (II Kings 21:25). He was slain in battle at Megiddo against Pharaoh Necho II’s Egyptian army in 609 BCE (II Kings 23:29-30; II Chronicles 35:20-35). In addition to the canonical accounts, Josiah’s death is also recorded in I Esdras, a Greek version of Ezra found in the Apocrypha (I Esdras 1:25-32). Josiah’s death proved catastrophic, marking the beginning of the end of his nation. His son, Jehoahaz, lasted only three months as king before being deposed (II Kings 23:31-34; II Chronicles 36:1-4) and Judah would fall permanently twelve years later.

Tragically, Necho II had no desire to kill Josiah or even battle Judah (II Chronicles 35:21; I Esdras 1:26-27). Necho II had just become Pharaoh and was using the coastal route, Via Maris, to reach Carchemish in northern Syria (II Kings 23:29; II Chronicles 35:20; I Esdras 1:25). He simply wanted to aid his allies, the Assyrians, in their battle against the Babylonians. Necho II requested passage through Judah but for unknown reasons, Josiah refused and rushed to intercept the Pharaoh’s northward march at Megiddo (II Chronicles 35:22; I Esdras 1:28). Josiah’s ambush was unsuccessful and he died from wounds received from archers in the disastrous engagement (II Kings 23:29; II Chronicles 30:23-24; I Esdras 1:29-31).

Megiddo is where we derive the word Armageddon, which reads literally “Mount Megiddo”.

Josiah’s rationale for attacking the Egyptians is unknown. Avner Falk (b. 1943) describes the act of attacking the far superior Egyptian army as “clearly suicidal” (Falk, A Psychoanalytic History of the Jews, 181). Falk also offers several explanations. Firstly, Josiah feared an Egyptian victory would strengthen his traditional rival, Assyria, who had supported Manasseh’s syncretistic policies (II Kings 21:10-18). In this scenario, Josiah did not discern that it was no longer Assyria who would be his biggest threat, but Babylon, who would permanently overthrow his nation. Another hypothesis is that Josiah was honoring a mutual defense treaty with Babylon. Falk suggests that Josiah’s own narcissism proved his own undoing (Falk, 181).

Eric H. Cline (b. 1960) proposes that Necho II was threatened by Josiah’s religious reforms and tricked the king into meeting him only to assassinate him (Cline, The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze Age to the Nuclear Age, 99). This theory fits the abrupt account in Kings - “And King Josiah went to meet him, and when Pharaoh Neco saw him he killed him at Megiddo” (II Kings 23:30 NASB) - though it does not fit Chronicles’ record which notes that Necho II warned Josiah and that the king disguised himself (II Chronicles 35:22).

Other scholars have attempted to reconstruct Josiah’s motives by claiming that he wished to reunite Israel and Judah. In battling Necho II, Josiah was attempting to eliminate Egypt from the region (Victor H. Matthews (b. 1950), A Brief History of Ancient Israel, 90).

Why do you think Josiah made such a disastrous decision? What is the most misguided decision you have ever made? What were the consequences?

One of the most perplexing aspects of the story is that Necho II, presumably a pagan who worshiped his own gods, invokes God’s will, in an attempt to deter Josiah:

“What have we to do with each other, O King of Judah? I am not coming against you today but against the house with which I am at war, and God has ordered me to hurry. Stop for your own sake from interfering with God who is with me, so that He will not destroy you.” (II Chronicles 35:21 NASB)

Necho II’s words actually did come from God (II Chronicles 35:22). I Esdras echoes these sentiments and adds that the prophet Jeremiah objected to Josiah’s strategy (I Esdras 1:28).

Was Necho really speaking for God? Why would Judah’s holiest king not follow God? Why would God triangulate, speaking to Josiah through a (presumably unreliable) third party? Have you ever felt God speaking to you through someone who espoused a different religion?

Priests: Born or Made? (Numbers 3)

Out of the twelve tribes, which one was consecrated to the temple service? The tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:6-8)

In the Old Testament, the descendants of Levi were consecrated for among other things, temple service (Numbers 3:6-10, 18:2-7; Deuteronomy 10:8-9). The Levites were charged with ministering to the Kohanim (priests) and keeping watch over the Tabernacle (Numbers 18:2-6). (Contrary to popular belief, the Levites did not simply make God’s jeans.) All priests were Levites but not all Levites were priests (Numbers 18:1-2; Deuteronomy 21:5, 31:9). The book of Leviticus, which has a priestly impetus, is taken from the Greek meaning “relating to the Levites”.

Levi was the third son of Jacob a.k.a. Israel (Genesis 29:34, 35:23). God personally selected his descendants commanding “you shall cleanse them and present them as a wave offering; for they are wholly given to Me from among the sons of Israel. I have taken them for Myself instead of every first issue of the womb, the firstborn of all the sons of Israel (Numbers 8:15-16 NASB).”

The Levites were unique among Israel’s tribes. A special ceremony was held to consecrate the Levites and designate them to God’s service (Numbers 8:5-22). They were not eligible for military service as in conducting the census of the army, Moses was explicitly instructed to not count the Levites (Numbers 1:47-53, 2:33). The Levites were the only tribe not allotted land (Leviticus 25:32-34; Deuteronomy 10:8-9, 14:29; Joshua 13:13, 33, 14:3-4, 18:7) though they were given cities in which to reside (Numbers 35:1-5; Joshua 21:1-42). The Levites were given no inheritance as “the LORD, the God of Israel, is their inheritance” (Joshua 13:33 NASB). The Levites were dependent upon the landed tribes for sustenance, namely through tithes (Numbers 18:8-31; Deuteronomy 12:19), particularly the tithe known as the Maaser Rishon or Levite Tithe (Numbers 18:21-26).

Was the Levites designation as clergy a boon or did they draw the short end of the stick? In an era of the priesthood of all believers, should Christians mimic the ordinances set for the Levites? Why were the Levites set apart as Levi never demonstrated any moral superiority over his brothers (Genesis 34:1-31, 49:5-7)?

The Levites were selected for the clerical task because they were the tribe who stood with Moses in the blasphemous incident of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:26-29). While Moses was on Mount Sinai convening with God and retrieving the Ten Commandments, the people became restless and convinced Aaron to fashion a Golden Calf (Exodus 32:1-6). When Moses returned, the Levites were the tribe which banded with Moses against the idolaters (Exodus 32:26). In fact, they killed 3000 infidels that very day (Exodus 32:28). It was presumably this zeal that set them apart for the priesthood (Exodus 32:29).

Ironically, both Moses and Aaron were Levites (Exodus 2:1-10, 4:14; Numbers 26:59; Joshua 21:4, 10).

In contrast, today Christian clergy are selected based on an individual sense of calling as opposed to being born into the profession.

Which system of clergy selection do you prefer? What are the benefits of both methods? What overarching factors changed to necessitate the change in clergy appointment? Have you known any second generation ministers? What are the advantages?

Gospel Thesis (John 20:31)

According to John 20:31, what is John’s stated purpose in writing the Gospel? “That you might believe in Jesus Christ and have life through His name”

Of all the gospels, John has the most clear purpose statement. The author writes “but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31 NASB).” Given this statement at the conclusion of chapter 20, John’s twenty-first and final chapter has often been viewed as an epilogue.

John 20:31 is an example of a thesis statement. The Writing Center at the University of North Carolina advises “state your point of view on the topic directly and often in one sentence. This sentence is the thesis statement, and it serves as a summary of the argument you’ll make in the rest of your paper (“Thesis Statements”).

Were you to write a life of Christ, what would the thesis statement be?

Each gospel was written to a different audience with a different agenda and as such each has its own thesis statement. Scholars have unanimously determined the thesis statements to Mark’s and Luke’s gospels:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45 NASB)

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10, NASB)

While scholars have reached a consensus on the thesis statements of three of the gospels, Matthew’s key verse is subject to debate with numerous verses offered (Matthew 2:2, 4:17, 5:17, 16:16, 21:39, 27:37). While Matthew’s thesis statement is not clearly defined, the gospel’s message is: Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, the long awaited king and Messiah.

Which verse would you pick as Matthew’s purpose statement? Which gospel’s thesis statement do you prefer? Why? What was the purpose of Jesus’ life?

Gamaliel the Teacher (Acts 22:3)

Who was Paul’s teacher? Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)

Paul is one of the most controversial figures in Christianity yet even his biggest detractors do not doubt his education. When presenting his defense at trial in Jerusalem, Paul cites his credentials, including studying under the famed Jewish rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). This would be the ancient equivalent of an Ivy League education.

Gamaliel the Elder (d. 52 CE) was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish tribunal. He was the first to whom the title “Rabban” (“our master”), from which we get “Rabbi”, was given. Rabbi was a relatively new term during Paul’s life as it developed around the time of a schism which arose between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Many suppose that Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel, but the earliest traditions document that he founded his own school (Andreas J. Köstenberger [b.1957], L. Scott Kellum [b. 1964] and Charles L.Quarles [b.1965], The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, 389). The Talmud claims that 500 people in Gamaliel’s “house” studied the Torah while 500 studied Greek wisdom (Baba Kamma 83a).

Gamaliel is revered in the Mishnaic tradition but referenced less frequently in the Talmud (Heigel, The Pre-Christian Paul, 29-34). In the Mishnah, like Billy Graham (b. 1918) in modern times, Gamaliel was called to consult a king and queen (Pesahim 88:2) and he is remembered as one of the greatest teachers ever: “Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and piety died out at the same time (Sotah 15:18).”

Gamaliel is one of the few Pharisees to garner favorable reviews in the New Testament, where he is referenced twice (Acts 5:34, 22:3). In Gamaliel’s only other Biblical appearance, he diffused Christian opposition by asking that his Jewish constituents exercise patience (Acts 5:33-40). They grudgingly heed his advice - “So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God (Acts 5:38-39 NASB).” An early church tradition even claims that Gamaliel embraced Christianity but remained in the Sanhedrin as a covert Christian operative (Recognitions of Clement, 1:65-66).

Who taught you? Is your education formal or informal? How much did your teachers influence you? Do your opinions mirrors those of your mentors and/or teachers? Did Gamaliel influence Paul?

To varying degrees, all teachers influence their students. The magnitude to which Gamaliel impacted Paul is debated as Paul does not state the nature or the extent of his tutelage under Gamaliel. Given Paul’s murderous pursuit of Christians (Acts 8:1-3, 9:4-5, 22:4, 22:7-8, 26:14-15; I Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13, 23; Philippians 3:6; I Timothy 1:13) and Gamaliel’s tolerance (Acts 5:33-40), there was certainly a disconnect between the two. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) explains that Gamaliel’s stance was indicative of the Hillelites who “broadly speaking, pursued a quality of ‘live and let live.’” (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 27). In contrast, it has been speculated that Paul espoused the stricter code of law as supported by Hillel [d. 10]’s foe, Shammai [50 BCE-30 CE] (Galatians 5:3, Köstenberger, 389) Their diverging beliefs and the fact that the pairing is not mentioned elsewhere has led many, including Helmet Koester (b. 1926), to doubt whether Paul actually studied with Gamaliel. The Talmud does describe Gamaliel as having taught an impudent student (Shabbath 30b), which a few scholars have speculated references Paul.

Paul certainly was more radical than the tolerant Gamaliel. The discrepancies between the two does not necessarily mean that they did not work together. In his speech, Paul never claims to have been disciple of Gamaliel. A student, unlike a disciple, does not always adopt the philosophy of her teacher. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Strikingly, Paul never references Gamaliel in any of his epistles, even in places where it would be expected as when he cites his Jewish credentials (Philippians 3:4-6). Then again, when Paul brags, it is of his deeds, not his education (II Corinthians 10:13). Paul’s education led to action. George Santayana (1863-1952) wrote, “The great difficulty in education is to get experience out of ideas.” Paul certainly did this.

Can Gamaliel’s influence be seen in Paul’s theology? Are you proud of your education? Was Paul proud of his?

“A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.” - Henry Brooks Adams (1838-1918)

Pharaoh’s “Hard” Heart (Exodus 11:10)

Whose heart was hardened by God? Pharaoh’s (Exodus 11:10)

The book of Exodus is known for Moses liberating the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The interplay between Pharaoh and Moses is actually secondary to the story’s primary duel between God and Pharaoh. Though they never speak directly, the story is really a battle between God and Pharaoh, the Egyptian ruler who claimed divinity. Moses merely serves as the emissary between the two “deities”. Throughout the account, the narrative notes 17 times that the Israelites’ freedom was delayed because Pharaoh’s heart was “hardened” (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 13, 22, 8:15, 19, 32, 9:7, 12, 34, 35, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8). In nine of those instances, God is said to be the catalyst behind Pharaoh’s hardened heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8)!

God initiating Pharaoh’s hard heart makes for difficult theology. Skeptics read the story as God coercing the monarch into making poor decisions he might otherwise not have made. This reading, though very natural, pictures God as manipulative, coercive, and culpable in sin. God would also be seen as hypocritical for hardening the ruler’s heart and then punishing him for it. God also would be disciplining someone not acting of their own volition, much less God’s own. Further, God would be foolishly undermining God’s own objective of freeing the Israelites. Perhaps most egregiously, God would be overriding the free will of a human being. Critics denounce God for mistreating Pharaoh who in this scenario is seen as little more than God’s helpless puppet. If God worked in this manner with Pharoah, the same could presumably be done towards others, namely us. As such, the story calls into question God’s justice and goodness.

It is worth noting that the original audience would have never viewed the text in this manner. Pharaoh is the story’s villain and the intended reader would not have sympathized with him. They would have read the text from below, as the underdogs. Exodus is replete with miraculous divine intervention and the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart would be viewed as one more in a long line of miracles. Readers tend not to mind when the miraculous is a violation of nature but object when the miraculous entails a violation of the nature of a human being.

If Pharaoh’s actions were determined by God, was he wrongly punished? Does God play fair? Is God just? Is God good? How do we reconcile God’s actions?

Many explanations have been posed regarding the allegations levied against God in the case of Pharaoh’s heart. One is that God does not compel Pharaoh to do anything that was not in his will. Of the 17 times that Pharaoh’s heart is said to have been hardened, three distinct declarations are made. Nine times God is credited (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8), five times the claim is presented in the passive form with no source given as to the cause (Genesis 7:13, 22, 8:19, 9:7, 35) and three times Pharaoh himself initiated the hardening (Exodus 8:15, 32, 9:34). At other times the text notes that Pharaoh refused to humble himself (Exodus 10:3) and that he was stubborn (Exodus 13:15). The text also indicates that, at times, Pharaoh’s own magicians had a hand in the hardening of his heart (Exodus 7:22; 8:19). When the story is recounted in Samuel, it is remembered that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (I Samuel 6:6).

Apologist Norman Geisler (b. 1932) and Thomas Howe (b. 1950) hold that God would not directly harden anyone’s heart contrary to their own free choice, but only indirectly, through their own choice. They write, “God in His omniscience foreknew exactly how Pharaoh would respond, and He used it to accomplish His purposes. God ordained the means of Pharaoh’s free but stubborn action as well as the end of Israel’s deliverance (Geisler and Howe, Making Sense of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation, 209). ”

Certainly, even were he totally benevolent, Pharaoh by the nature of his position would have resisted Moses’ request. Through the lens of political science, he could not have afforded either the scandal of losing two million slaves or the economic loss of his labor force. Even so, the text starts with God prophesying that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3-5). If Pharaoh would have acted as he did regardless, why is God implicated in his hardened heart?

In a similar explanation, others propose that the text means that God simply facilitated a process that Pharaoh himself initiated. God does not harden Pharaoh’s heart until after the fifth plague. Previously he did it himself.

Others claim that the text conveys that God presented only the opportunity for Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened and that God permitted it. E.W. Bullinger (1837-1913) wrote that some active verbs “were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in The Bible, 823).” Thus, when the text says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it means that God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. This is true as had God not sent Moses, Pharaoh would have never faced the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. In this scenario, God is like a parent who takes a spoiled child to a toy store at which the tike pitches a fit when she does not receive the prize she desired. The parent did not create the tantrum, she only placed the child in a position where her character would show. This reading is problematic as the expression is used in the context of a prophecy where the scenario is being described anyway (Exodus 4:21), making this explanation redundant.

The text is naturally more problematic for the Arminian than the Calvinist as Calvinists explain the text with the fact that God can do whatever God chooses to do. The answer is “not to retract the sovereignty of God’s election, or to try to give a rational explanation to doubting men” (Edwin H. Palmer [1922-1980], The Five Points of Calvinism, 33). Some have viewed Paul’s allusion to Pharaoh in Romans 9:17-18 as referring to this instance and subsequently Pharaoh’s hardened heart is simply a way for God’s glory to be revealed.

While God did receive honor through the events in Exodus, there must have been other ways to accrue glory that would not have infringed upon Pharaoh’s free will. This reading seems to have no problem with God causing sin to make Godself look great. It elevates God’s sovereignty at the expense of God’s character.

Infringing upon one’s free will is out of character for God. Is there another case where God even appears to be violating someone’s free will? As this is so irregular, something else may be going on.

The Hebrew word typically used when God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart is chazaq. It does not carry the same connotation in Hebrew that “harden” does in English. It means “to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore.” It is used eight of the nine times God is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 13, 22, 8:19, 9:12, 35, 10:20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8). In contrast, when Pharaoh hardens his own heart, the word kabad is used, meaning “to be heavy, be weighty, be grievous, be hard, be rich, be honourable, be glorious, be burdensome, be honoured” (Exodus 8:15, 32, 9:7, 34, 10:1, 14:4). Only in Exodus 10:1 is this verb used of God.

Chazaq is a common term with a generally positive connotation. It is not rendered “harden” outside of being connected to the heart. It often describes assisting someone with a course that they have decided upon. Whereas in English, “harden” has a pejorative feel as traditionally soft heartedness is a virtue, chazaq is at worst neutral. Since nowhere is it said that someone softened the heart, there is not even a negative correlate. Though the hardening of the heart is typically seen as God impeding Pharaoh, God could have potentially been assisting Pharaoh. This would fit with the more normative use of the Hebrew. In changing the translation, the text’s meaning changes.

Pharaoh, who professes to be God, is competing with God and is woefully overmatched. There are two ways in which a dominant player can give an adversary a fighting chance. One can reduce one’s own power or increase the power of one’s adversaries. In chess, one can pull her queen to give the other player a chance or in basketball someone can spot an inferior opponent points. God cannot reduce God’s own power but God can spot Pharaoh. In strengthening Pharaoh’s heart, God is evening the playing field. This interpretation also fits the context as God only addresses Pharaoh’s heart after the fifth plague, a point at which the exasperated ruler might not have been able to do so himself.

Viewing Pharaoh’s heart as strengthened moves the verb from a negative to, at worst, a neutral. Much like receiving an adrenaline rush in crisis, the recipient could use the added strength for good or evil. Perhaps his strengthened heart could have enabled Pharoah to tell his attendants that he was relinquishing the man power his slaves provided.

Whether the reader feels he had a choice or not, what is undeniable is that Pharaoh chose poorly.

Does God still harden people’s hearts? Have you ever known anyone whose heart you felt had been hardened? Has yours? What would have been the results had God not hardened Pharaoh’s heart? What did function did it serve? Does God’s treatment of Pharaoh make you trust God less?

Hezekiah’s Reprieve (II Kings 20:6)

Whose life was lengthened by fifteen years because he prayed? King Hezekiah (II Kings 20:6)

As his nation was under siege from Assyria, Hezekiah, king of Judah, became mortally ill (II Kings 20:1-11; II Chronicles 32:24-26; Isaiah 38:1-8). The prophet Isaiah had the unenviable task of informing the king that he must prepare to die - “set your house in order (II Kings 20:2; Isaiah 38:1 NASB).” The prophet’s pronouncement seemingly left no hope for the king. Hezekiah responded as he done previously, with prayer, protesting his allegiance to God (II Kings 20:3; Isaiah 38:2). Though he did not explicitly pray for an extended life, Hezekiah implicitly refused to accept the prophet’s verdict. God answered swiftly and definitively as before Isaiah had even left the premises, he returned and announced that God had promised to extend Hezekiah’s life by fifteen years and would also defend Jerusalem (II Kings 20:4-6; Isaiah 38:4-6). In conjunction with the king’s recovery, the prophet laid a cake of figs on the king’s boil (II Kings 20:7; Isaiah 38:21).

The specific nature of Hezekiah’s illness is never revealed aside from the presence of the boil or inflammation (Sh@chiyn, II Kings 20:7; Isaiah 38:21). Though it would be labeled folk medicine today and is uncharacteristic of Isaiah’s ministry, the application of figgy pudding was not an uncommon treatment in the ancient world.

Hezekiah handled his bad news with prayer. This was his practice (II Kings 19:14-19, 20:2; II Chronicles 30:18-19, 32:24; Isaiah 37:14-20, 38:2-3). Likewise, we are advised to pray habitually (Luke 18:1, 21:36; Ephesians 6:18) as God cares (I Peter 5:7). As such, can we assume that it is God’s desire to heal unless we have heard otherwise?

If you received a death sentence, what would you do to “set your house in order”? What would your prayer be were you given Hezekiah’s prognosis? Does Hezekiah’s prayer change God’s plans? Why is the folk medicine incorporated into Hezekiah’s recovery?

Given that the death sentence is repealed and the only variable that has changed is Hezekiah’s prayer, it would appear that something happened during his prayer that reversed his fortune. Hezekiah’s prayer appealed to his own good record:

“Remember now, O LORD, I beseech You, how I have walked before You in truth and with a whole heart and have done what is good in Your sight.” (II Kings 20:3 NASB)

After praying, Hezekiah wept bitterly, indicating sincerity (II Kings 20:3; Isaiah 38:3). Hezekiah’s boasts were not mere arrogance, they were true. Though he was the son of the wicked king Ahaz (II Kings 16:20, 18:1; I Chronicles 3:13; II Chronicles 28:27), Hezekiah had done “right in the sight of the LORD” (II Kings 18:3 NASB), “trusted in the LORD” (II Kings 18:5 NASB) and “clung to the LORD” (II Kings 18:6 NASB). Hezekiah had a good track record with God.

Hezekiah’s illness is a type story, a recurring tale (Robert L. Cohn [b. 1947], 2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 140). It marks the fourth time in Kings that an ill king was given a prophetic oracle regarding his fate as Jeroboam (I Kings 14:1-18), Ahaziah (II Kings 1:1-16) and Ben-hadad (II Kings 8:7-15) endured similar trials. In each of these instances, a king inquired of a prophet about an illness and received a death sentence in response. Hezekiah’s predicament diverges from type as in his case instead of the king seeking the prophet, the prophet sought the king and no intermediaries were necessary. Hezekiah is given equal footing with the prophet. The bad kings’ death sentences held while the good king reversed the oracle.

In both of these analyses, Hezekiah’s own righteousness accounts for God’s favorable response. Jesus affirmed that rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous alike (Matthew 5:45) and that illness is not necessarily an indicator of sin (John 9:2-3). Many righteous people with terminal illnesses pray today and receive no such reprieve.

Why is Hezekiah’s prayer effective when so many similar prayers are not? Was Hezekiah’s prayer answered due to his own righteousness?

After his recovery, Hezekiah wrote:

Lo, for my own welfare I had great bitterness;
It is You who has kept my soul from the pit of nothingness,
For You have cast all my sins behind Your back. (Isaiah 38:17 NASB)

Hezekiah did not see God’s mercy as a response to his worthiness.

The fact that the promise of Hezekiah’s extended life correlated with the guarantee of peace despite the Assyrian threat (II Kings 20:6; Isaiah 38:6) may indicate that Hezekiah’s prayer was answered not just for his benefit alone. Hezekiah’s illness affected the state. Some have noted that at the time of his affliction, Hezekiah had yet to produce an heir as his son Manasseh, who succeeded him, was born three years after this sickness (II Kings 21:1; II Chronicles 33:1). Some have also seen a parallel between Hezekiah and his nation as both were facing death and received extended life through repentance. Both would eventually die but as Hezekiah would not die to his current illness, Judah would also not perish at the hands of its contemporary oppressor (but rather the Babylonians).

The Bible does not record why Hezekiah’s prayer was effective, only that his life span was extended by fifteen years. He also received more than he asked for as God also gave his nation clemency.

What purpose did Hezekiah’s illness serve? Who benefitted from Hezekiah’s extended life? Have you ever known someone who miraculously survived a prognosticated terminal illness? Has God ever exceeded your request in answer to prayer?

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21 NASB)

10 Commandments, 2 Places (Ex. 20 & Deut. 5)

In which two Old Testament books are the Ten Commandments recorded? Exodus (20:1-17) and Deuteronomy (5:1-21)

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are foundational laws given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:1-21). They appear twice in the Old Testament, both times in the Law, in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Moses first communicated the Ten Commandments after descending from Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17) and then reiterated them in his final discourse to the people (Deuteronomy 5:1-21). This is not surprising as Deuteronomy is a retelling of the law. The name Deuteronomy means “second law”. Churches have given preferential treatment to the version given in Exodus.

The Ten Commandments are referred to elsewhere in the Bible as the ten devarim (“statements”) which is why they are grouped as a unit of ten (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4). Early English Bible translations Tyndale (1530) and Coverdale (1535) referred to them as the “ten verses”. The Geneva Bible (1560) appears to be the first English translation to use “tenne commandements”, which established the precedent for the King James Version (1611). Various religions and denominations number the commandments differently. (To see different ways in which the Ten Commandments have been grouped, click here.)

There are subtle differences in the two versions of the Ten Commandments. One glaring dissimilarity is seen in the rationale behind keeping the Sabbath, the fourth commandment. The first version cites the precedent of God resting on the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:1-3). Exodus reads:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:11 NASB)

In contrast, Deuteronomy explains:

“You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:15 NASB)

Compare and contrast the two versions of the Ten Commandments. What differences do you notice? Does it bother you that there are different reasons given to explain the fourth commandment? Which is the real reason for observing the Sabbath?

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) explained that Deuteronomy did not need to repeat the reference to creation in recording the fourth commandment as Deuteronomy itself refers back to the command from Exodus with the words “as the Lord your God has commanded you (Deuteronomy 5:12 NASB).” Instead, Moses revealed an additional motive for the command.

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) gave equal weight to both rationales for the Sabbath command. He explained, “God commanded us to abstain from work on the Sabbath, and to rest, for two purposes; namely, (1) That we might confirm the true theory, that of the Creation, which at once and clearly leads to the theory of the existence of God. (2) That we might remember how kind God had been in freeing us from the burden of the Egyptians - The Sabbath is therefore a double blessing: it gives us correct notions, and also promotes the well-being of our bodies (Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, 406).”

The two explanations given for observing the Sabbath do not contradict one another. One action can be completed for more than one reason, hence the expression killing two birds with one stone. A person eats to sustain life but might also eat to enjoy a good meal or to celebrate an event. Why did they eat? All reasons might be equally accurate.

Jesus resolved that God instituted the Sabbath for humanity’s benefit - “ The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27 NASB).

What examples can you find of people performing one action for multiple reasons? In what ways does the Sabbath benefit humanity? Do you observe the Sabbath? If so, why?

Jesus of Nazareth in Nazareth (Luke 4:17)

Which prophet did Jesus quote when He first proclaimed His ministry in the synagogue of Nazareth? Isaiah (Luke 4:17)

Though each Synoptic gospel documents Jesus’ return to his hometown of Nazareth (Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:16-30), Luke emphasizes the event by making Jesus’ homecoming the first extensively narrated act of his public ministry. The gospels all concur that the congregation initially approved of Jesus’ message (Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:22) before taking offense (Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:29). Luke records that in order to leave Nazareth, Jesus had to evade an attempt on his life as the crowd attempted to throw him headlong off of a cliff (Luke 4:29-30)!

Luke is also the only evangelist to record Jesus’ sermon text: the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:18-19). Though it is doubtful that Jesus read just the small selection from Isaiah recorded in the gospel, the essence of the Scriptures he read is preserved. The Scripture Luke chronicled is a medley from Isaiah composed predominantly of a representation of Isaiah 61:1-2 (technically Isaiah 61:1-2a) with one clause from Isaiah 58:6 (Isaiah 58:6d). Luke’s version is neither an exact rendering of the Hebrew text nor the Greek version (Septuagint) of the Isaiah passages.

The passage, as Luke records, it reads:

The Spirit of the LORD us upon me,
Because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19, NASB)

The two passages from Isaiah were likely combined thematically as the same crucial word is featured in both: aphesis. The word means “release from bondage or imprisonment” and is seen when Jesus says he is “to proclaim release to the captives” and “set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18 NASB). Combining the two passages from Isaiah emphasizes the theme of liberation that characterized Jesus’ ministry.

Why did Jesus select this particular passage from Isaiah to present to his hometown audience? How does the passage represent gospel - “good news”? Have you ever heard a minister preach a sermon at her home church? Have you ever faced difficulties in returning home?

The passage represents Jesus’ mission statement, a manifesto of sorts, as it describes the ministry Jesus was called to carry out. Isaiah 61 describes the restoration and mission of God’s people after the exile. Jesus’ connection to the passage is seen as after reading the Scripture, he announced “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing (Luke 4:21 NASB).”

In what ways did Jesus fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy? If you had to select one Old Testament passage to describe Jesus’ mission, what would it be? What passage of Scripture do you most identify with? Do you have a personal mission statement?

“You can’t go home again” - Thomas Wolfe (1900-1938)

The King is Dead (I Chronicles 10:12)

How long did the men of Jabesh-gilead fast after Saul’s death? Seven days (I Chronicles 10:12)

Israel’s first king, Saul, and three of his sons died while battling the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (I Samuel 31:1-6; I Chronicles 10:1-6). Israel was numbed by the defeat and the disconsolate army retreated (I Samuel 31:7; I Chronicles 10:7). The death of the royal family would have been perceived as cataclysmic, equivalent to modern U.S. calamities like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The battle also marked a hapless end to a tragic life that began with vast potential (I Samuel 9:1-2).

As was military custom, the Philistine soldiers pillaged the carnage for spoils of war and while stripping the dead, they found Saul’s body (I Samuel 31:8; I Chronicles 10:8). The king would have been easily identifiable due to his exceptional height (I Samuel 9:2, 10:23) and distinguishable armor (I Samuel 17:38). Not surprisingly, the Philistines made a religious claim about the event, crediting a victory to their gods over the God of Israel (I Samuel 31:9; I Chronicles 10:9). They stripped Saul, decapitated him and graphically displayed the king’s remnants throughout the land placing his armor in the temple of Ashtoreths, his body on the wall of Beth Shan and his head in the temple of Dagon (I Samuel 31:10; I Chronicles 10:9-10).

Upon learning of this humiliation, the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead infiltrated nearby Beth Shan under cover of night and recovered Saul’s body, reverently burning his bones and burying them beneath a tree (I Samuel 31:12-13; I Chronicles 10:12). Cremation was highly rare in ancient Israel but it may have been done to insure the safety of the body. For this deed of valor they were highly praised by Saul’s successor, David (II Samuel 2:4–6) who would later have Saul’s body exhumed for proper burial in his native Benjamin (II Samuel 21:12-14).

After completing this rescue, the people of Jabesh-gilead fasted for seven days (I Chronicles 10:12; I Samuel 31:13). They publicly mourned their fallen leader. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) compares, “The prospect of public grief is a scarce practice in our society, where we are so engaged in self-deception, pretending that everything is all right.” (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 218).

The people of Jabesh-gilead risked life for the dead. Was this wise? Are there other historical or literary examples of retrieving a corpse from enemy hands for proper burial? Did the ancient view of the afterlife influence their decision? Why did the people of Jabesh-Gilead take this risk? Why did other Israelites not also retrieve Saul’s head and armor? How do you grieve? Which is healthier, the grieving process in ancient Israel or modern America?

Only the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead and eventually David and his men fasted when they learned of the fallen king’s passing (I Samuel 31:13; II Samuel 1:12; I Chronicles 10:12). Saul’s approval rating was low as his behavior was often erratic. The threatened monarch attempted to kill his perceived rival, David (I Samuel 18:10-11, 19:1, 9-10, 11-14), and even his own son, Jonathan (I Samuel 20:33), and later brutally commanded the slaughter of 85 priests (I Samuel 22:17-19). His last irrational act was consulting a medium (I Samuel 28:7-19). After recording Saul’s death, I Chronicles summarized that “Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse (I Chronicles 10:13-14 NASB).”

Even so, the people of Jabesh-gilead were not afraid to be linked with the dead king when so many others were. Forty years earlier, Jabesh-gilead was the site of Saul’s first victory (I Samuel 11:1-11). Though the exact site of Jabesh-Gilead is debated, it was a town east of the Jordan River within the borders of the half tribe of Manasseh and in full view of Beth Shan. Jabesh-Gilead appears to have been aligned with the tribe of Benjamin as the people of Jabesh-Gilead did not join an earlier expedition of Israelite tribes against Benjamin at great personal cost (Judges 21:8-14) and when Nahash the Ammonite took Jabesh-Gilead, they appealed to a Benjamite - Saul (I Samuel 9:21, 10:21; I Chronicles 12:2, 29; Acts 13:21). After a day’s march, Saul routed the Ammonites and freed the city (I Samuel 11:6-11). It was a kindness Jabesh-gilead never forgot.

Some have wondered why the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead were not at the battle at Gilboa in the first place as they were counted among Israel (I Samuel 11:3-4) yet apparently failed to heed Saul’s summons to war (I Samuel 29:4). There is a possibility that their support of the king waned. Even if this is true, they would not allow their former hero to be disgraced in death.

How does the Jabesh-gilead rescue of Saul parallel his previous rescue of them? Does everyone deserve to be mourned by someone? Who will you mourn and who will mourn you? Whose past kindness have you forgotten?

“A man’s indebtedness is not virtue; his repayment is. Virtue begins when he dedicates himself actively to the job of gratitude.” - Ruth Fulton Benedict (1887-1948)

Marry Gomer, Feel God’s Pain (Hosea 1:3)

Who married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim? Hosea

Hosea was among the first writing prophets and the book bearing his name is the first of the twelve minor prophets canonized in the Bible. The Talmud claims that he was the greatest prophet of his generation (the eighth century BCE), an era which also included Isaiah (Pesachim 87A). Though he addressed Judah, Hosea was primarily concerned with the condition of the northern kingdom of Israel (whom he calls “Ephraim” 26 times) and the threat of a disaster that silently approached. (The Assyrians would eradicate the northern kingdom in 722 BCE). Though the book primarily denounces Israel for apostasy and warns of pending judgment, it also contains a promise of restoration (Hosea 3:4-5; 14:4-7). The book, however, is best known for the story of Hosea’s unstable marriage to the harlot, Gomer (Hosea 1-3).

Uncharacteristically, when the word of the Lord first came to Hosea, it was not to give him a message to relay but a personal instruction to marry a harlot (zanah). (I am betting this took him by surprise.) The command reads, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD (Hosea 1:2 NASB).” As such, Hosea’s first act as prophet was to marry a prostitute. (Pretty Woman stole its plot line from God.) God did not specify which harlot he was to marry but Hosea did as he was commanded and married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim (Hosea 1:3). (I wonder how Hosea expressed why he was interested in her...) The marriage produced three children all adorned with names that served as status updates regarding God’s relationship with Israel: Jezreel - “God sows” (Hosea 1:4-5), Lo-ruhamah - “No compassion” (Hosea 1:6-7) and Lo-ammi - “Not my people” (1:8-9). It has been suggested that the paternity of the two youngest children was questionable (Hosea 2:4). Despite God being so involved in his love story, Hosea is not mentioned once in Eric Ludy (b. 1970) and Leslie Ludy (b. 1975)’s When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Guide to Guy/Girl Relationships...

Have any other notable people married prostitutes? Why did God ask Hosea to do this? How do we explain God’s commanding his prophet to marry someone with whom he is “unequally yoked” (II Corinthians 6:14)? Have you or anyone you know ever felt called to marry a specific person or someone from a particular profession? When have you felt led by God to do something you did not want to?

Hosea used his own marital experience as a symbolic representation of God and Israel. In doing so, Hosea is believed to be the first prophet to use marriage as a metaphor for the covenant between God and Israel. The theme would recur in the work of later prophets (Isaiah 62:5; Jeremiah 3:8). Like Hosea, Jeremiah’s own marriage was scripted by God, but in his case the command was to not marry (Jeremiah 16:2).

Hosea’s first three chapters are devoted to the prophet’s marriage to the prostitute, alternating between his personal narrative and how those events paralleled God’s relationship to the nation with God portraying the dutiful husband and Israel the unfaithful wife. Hosea’s home life reflected the adulterous relationship which Israel had built with polytheistic gods and Hosea could truly empathize with the deity for whom he spoke. Through his marriage, Hosea could feels God’s pain.

Like Hosea’s selection of Gomer, God had contracted with an unreliable partner when he selected Abraham and his descendants. Even though Gomer ran away from Hosea and partnered with another man, he continued to seek her redemption (Hosea 3:1). Likewise, God had also refused to break covenant with Israel in spite of the nation worshiping other gods (Hosea 2:23, 3:1). Hosea manifested God’s love and patience for as the prophet searched for his wayward wife, found her and restored her, God would also not abandon Israel (Hosea 3:1-5). As such, the prophecy of Hosea is foremost concerned with God’s unending love towards a sinful people.

In what ways is marriage like one’s relationship to God? In what ways can you relate to Hosea? What does the fact that God would instruct Hosea to marry an unfaithful woman (and presumably make him miserable) say about the intent of marriage?

“The real purpose of marriage may not be happiness as much as it is holiness. Not that God has anything against happiness, or that happiness and holiness are by nature mutually exclusive, but looking at marriage through the lens of holiness began to put it into an entirely new perspective for me.” - Gary L. Thomas (b. 1961), Sacred Marriage: What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy, pp. 22-23

Lydia: Purple Peddler (Acts 16:14)

What was Lydia’s occupation? Seller of purple goods (Acts 16:14).

On his second missionary journey, Paul had a vision of a man from Macedonia calling him to work there and he and his companions set out immediately (Acts 16:9-10). Ironically (considering his vision), when Paul arrived in Philippi, the Macedonian capitol, he found neither men to preach to nor synagogue to preach in so he began preaching to women by a riverside (Acts 16:12-13). Among the congregation was a woman who responded to the message named Lydia, a resident of Thyatira and “dealer in purple cloth” (Acts 16:14 NASB). She insisted that Paul and his associates stay at her home and they did until they departed the region (Acts 16:15, 40). This peddler of purple is considered the first Christian convert in Europe (Acts 16:14-15).

Lydia was a self sufficient woman. Strikingly, no husband or father is used in identifying her. She was a working woman who evidently possessed an independent spirit as she fearlessly sought a religion outside the established pagan brand of the empire.

She had a unique occupation. She is described as a porphuropolis, the only time this word appears in the New Testament. It is feminine and a compound of porphura (the purple fish, a species of shell fish or mussel ) and poleo (“to barter, to sell”). While most translations add the word “cloth” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “goods” (ESV, RSV), the ASV, KJV and NKJV stick closely to the Greek and read simply that she was a “seller of purple”.

What is the significance of Lydia selling purple? If you had to put into one word what you sell, what would it be? What color do you most associate with yourself?

Lydia was in a lucrative business. Though dye extraction is no longer a viable commercial venture as modern dyes are synthetic, in Lydia’s time they were natural and purple was especially expensive. Purple was a commodity and status symbol as the costly fabric was reserved for the elite. Only the emperor wore a toga made entirely of purple cloth. The luxury item was also big business.

Purple dye was expensive because of the difficulty in extracting it. Thousands of mollusks were required to dye a single yard. Purple dye was derived from the mucus of the hypobranchial gland of the Murex shellfish. This snail was especially prominent in Lydia’s home town of Thyatira (Acts 16:14; Revelation 1:11, 2:18, 24), a city 250 miles southeast of Philippi in the Roman province of Asia (modern day Akhisar, Turkey). Murex produces a deep blue violet dye that, unlike others, is colorfast and permits the washing of garments.

This celebrated purple dye is cited in texts dating as early as 1600 BCE. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) and Pliny the Elder (23-79) document that snails were gathered in autumn or winter and kept alive until a huge quantity had been collected as each shell produced only a single drop of dye. The dye was extracted by crushing smaller shells and piercing larger ones. The milky fluid was then put into brine where vinegar was added and was then left in the sun until the color gradually transformed from a yellowish hue to a deep purplish red. It was then boiled down to further concentrate it. It took approximately 12,000 shellfish to extract 1½ grams of pure dye. One gram of purple dye was valued more than ten grams of gold and a pound of wool dyed with a favored purple could be sold for 1,000 denarii, a sum that would take a laborer three years to earn. A whole cloak of such material might cost three times that amount.

Lydia’s involvement in this business explains how she had the resources to host Paul and his companions during their lengthy stay (Acts 16:15, 40). Lydia and Paul met on a riverside at a “place of prayer” which appears to have been a space or enclosure in the open air consecrated for this purpose, not an edifice (Acts 16:13-14). Lydia challenged Paul to have faith in her: “If you consider me a believer in the Lord ...come and stay at my house (Acts 16:15, NASB).” Paul trusted Lydia and her home provided a structure where the Philippian church could meet. Even while Paul was imprisoned, she did not abandon him (Acts 16:22-40).

Why did Lydia open her home to Paul and his companions? How can your home be used to serve Christ?

“I read somewhere, in an article on monastic spirituality, that only people who are basically at home, and at home in themselves, can offer hospitality.” - Kathleen Norris (b. 1947), Amazing Grace: A Vocabulary of Faith, p. 267

Spare Rib or Better Half? (Genesis 2:22)

From what did God create woman? Out of the rib of Adam (Genesis 2:22).

The creation of woman is one of the most well known Bible stories. After generating Adam in the Garden of Eden, God observed that “it is not good for the man to be alone” and vowed to produce a suitable partner (Genesis 2:18 NASB). After unsuccessfully finding a companion amongst the animal kingdom, God anaesthetized Adam and fashioned a woman from one of his ribs (Genesis 2:20-22). Adam was ecstatic with the results and erupted with the first recorded poetry (Genesis 2:23). The woman was later named Eve (which means “life”) as “she was the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20 NASB).

A false myth derived from this story that men have one fewer rib than women. In fact, all humans have 24 ribs as anyone who has a body part surgically removed will not pass that trait onto their offspring.

Of all the body parts, why was a rib used in making the woman? Which part of Adam’s anatomy would you have preferred for this function?

The Bible does not say why God selected the rib but it has served for some humorous speculation. Why did God use the rib? Responses have included: Because it was the only thing that was “spare”. God offered Adam a better companion, but it was going to cost him an arm and a leg. At least she was not pulled out of his butt. This text has also been used in the battle of the sexes as women have bragged that they were not made from dirt and bitter men have said that the moral of the story is that women have been stealing from men since the dawn of time.

In more serious conjecturing, some have seen the rib as a pragmatic choice as it is something Adam could live without. Ribs are also the only bones in the body capable of regeneration if removed, so long as the periosteum (the membrane of connective tissue that surrounds the bone) is left intact. In one study, rib material was used in skull reconstruction and all twelve patients demonstrated complete regeneration of the removed rib. Human rib bone marrow mononuclear cells are also useful in genetic testing and (theoretically) genetic engineering.

Some have taken a sentimental view of the rib. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) wrote, “Woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

Others have seen the rib as tied to Sumerian mythology which tells of a consortium of gods who were transforming the land of Dilmun into a paradise until Enki (the water god) snacked on a forbidden plant. This prompted Ninhursag (the earth goddess) to curse Enki causing eight of his vitals to fail. Eventually, Ninhursag relented but needed to create eight new deities to heal each of Enki’s ailments. On the surface, the myth bares little resemblance to the tale of Adam and Eve aside from paradise being lost from eating forbidden fruit. The connection is in the names. The Hebrew name “Eve” is related to the verb “make live” and in Sumerian, the word for “make live” is ti which is also the Sumerian word for “rib”. Thus, the name of the goddess created to cure Enki’s rib, “Nin-Ti”, is a Sumerian pun, meaning both “The Lady of the Rib” and “The Lady Who Makes Live”.

Some scholars are not convinced that Genesis speaks of a rib. As Biblical Hebrew has no term for penis, it has been speculated that the “rib” which created the woman references the baculum, a bone which stiffens the penis. It would explain why humans are one of only two primates who lack a baculum, relying instead on hydraulics. A baculum, unlike a rib, is associated with reproduction. In this interpretation, when God “closed up the flesh at that place”(Genesis 2:21 NASB) the text is alluding to the raphe, a seam on the penis and scrotum.

Virtually every modern translation states that the first woman was created from man’s “rib” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). It can be argued, however, that “rib” is not the best translation of the Hebrew tsela’. This word is used 41 times in the Old Testament and it is only translated “rib” in relation to the creation story (Genesis 2:21-22). The only other time ribs appear in the Old Testament is in Daniel where the Aramiac ’ala’ is used (Daniel 7:5). Tsela’ is most commonly translated “side”. While the modern English word “rib” denotes a single bone in the upper torso, the Hebrew implies a far broader surgical focus that required greater sacrifice on Adam’s part. This view is seen in the Artscroll Torah, The Stone Edition which reads “...and He took one of his sides and He filled in the flesh in its place.”

Though the tradition of woman coming from man’s rib is longstanding it may not be original. Philo (20 BCE-50 CE) wrote “The letter of this statement is plain enough; for it is expressed according to the symbol of the part, a half of the whole, each party, the man and the woman, being as sections of nature co-equal for the production of that genus which is called man (Philo, The Works Of Philo, p. 796).”

If God took one “side” of Adam to make Eve, it could be said that God split Adam to make Eve, giving new meaning to the expression “my better half”. The words “bone of my bones” and “flesh of my flesh” would also take on new significance (Genesis 2:23). God dividing Adam in half to create a woman for him is a much more powerful symbol than merely taking a small bone out of his side. It creates far more equal imagery. In this scenario, the woman quite literally completes the man.

God did not make woman separate from man by forming her from dust. In creating woman from a part of the man, an immediate connection was also created. She was not another of God’s creatures that just happened to be paired with Adam. She was custom built to act as Adam’s partner. Rabbi Berlin (1816-1893) comments: “Only ‘this time’ is it so, since she is a ‘bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh’; [here, Adam’s love for Eve] is like a person who loves his own hand.”

How one reads this text is critical as it is foundational to the relationship between men and women (I Timothy 2:13-14) and affects one’s interpretation of marriage. Critics see the passage as serving to keep women in a subservient position. Others see the story as a beautiful picture of the marriage partnership (Ephesians 5:28-30).

Woman was created last. Does this make woman the crown of creation or subservient to man? What do you think the story of the creation of woman says about the relationship between men and women? What is the relationship between men and women?

Pursuing Perfection (Matthew 5:48)

Complete: “Be ye perfect as your ________________ is perfect.” Father in heaven (Matthew 5:48).

After advising his followers to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, love one’s enemies and even pray for them (Matthew 5:38-47), Jesus raised the bar even further. He concluded this section of his acclaimed Sermon on the Mount by disqualifying all human standards of conduct - “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48 KJV).

Almost every major translation renders the Greek teleios as “perfect” (ASV, ESV, HCSN, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) in Matthew 5:48. (The CEV and MSG omit the word.) Teleios can mean: 1. brought to its end, finished; 2. wanting nothing necessary; to completeness; 3. perfect; 4. that which is perfect. It conveys something that has completed its objective and carries with it the idea of being whole. Anything that has fully attained that for which it was designed is said to be “perfect” (teleios).

Jesus added the unnecessary pronoun “you” (humeis) to this statement, making it emphatic (Matthew 5:48). In doing so, Jesus forcefully established the highest standard possible for his followers: perfection. Many have commented that Jesus did not create a new requirement as God’s standard has always been perfect holiness (Leviticus 11:44, 19:2, 20:26; I Peter 1:15-16). John MacArthur (b. 1939) writes, “It is folly to think that being imperfect somehow provides us with a legitimate excuse to exempt us from God’s perfect standard (MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience, 126).”

As Jesus himself was sinless (John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15), he is the only human being who has ever been in a position to make this command. Even so, human beings are not perfect. Does Jesus command the impossible? How can one fulfill this wish? What would the perfect version of you look like?

Jesus’ words do not necessarily represent a command. The Greek can be read in the future tense - “You will be perfect”. In Greek, the future tense is the same as the imperative (a command) as in each case, a sigma infix is added to the middle of the verb. (In modern English, it is like adding an S to the middle of a verb and is not much different than what Snoop Dogg [b. 1971] does in adding -izzle to words.) The ASV, NKJV, and NLT render the verse in the future tense -“Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48 NKJV).”

This reading also complies with the meaning of teleios, which was also used to refer to the maturity of an adult, which is the end to which a child aims. A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) explains that teleios “comes from telos, end, goal, limit. Here it is the goal set before us, the absolute standard of our Heavenly Father (Robertson, Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I, 49).”

C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) devotes a chapter of Mere Christianity to Matthew 5:48 entitled “Counting the Cost” (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 201-206). He summarizes the issue:

I find a good many people have been bothered by…our Lord’s words “Be ye perfect.” Some people seem to think this means “Unless you are perfect, I will not help you,”; and as we cannot be perfect, then if He meant that, our position is hopeless. But I do not think He did mean that. I think He meant “The only help I will give is help to become perfect. You may want something less; but I will give you nothing less (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 201).”

Humans were created to be perfect. Seeing perfection as our destiny instead of merely a command moves the tone of the text from demanding to encouraging. We are a work in progress and, with God’s assistance, the work we are working towards is perfection.

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) explains that to achieve this goal of perfection “you must turn away from your own efforts completely and receive instead the perfection which God has already taken steps to provide for you. Nothing that you will ever do will be perfect. Only what God does is perfect. Hence, if you are to reach the perfection which God requires, it must be as the result of His working for you and in you (Boice, Sermon on the Mount, 170-171).

The key is that we move towards and not away from perfection. Lewis encourages, “This is the other and equally important side of it—this Helper who will, in the long run, be satisfied with nothing less than absolute perfection, will also be delighted with the first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the simplest duty (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 202).”

Perfection is the standard. Direction is the test. Are you moving towards perfection?

“Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor, the enemy of the people. It will keep you cramped and insane your whole life.” - Anne Lamott (b. 1954), Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life, p. 28

The Perfect Crime? (Genesis 37:31)

Whose coat was dipped in blood? Joseph’s (Genesis 37:31).

Jacob bestowed a special garment to his son, Joseph, which represented his status as the favorite (Genesis 37:3). The coat served to increase hostility between Jacob and his ten elder stepbrothers who were already peeved that he was a tattletale who bragged of grandiose dreams (Genesis 37:2, 4, 8, 11, 20). Their hatred led the stepbrothers to hatch a plot to eliminate Joseph (Genesis 37:18-36). Their initial plan was for Joseph to be murdered, thrown into a pit and the brothers to claim he had been devoured by a beast (Genesis 37:20). Eldest brother, Reuben, intervened on the seventeen year old’s behalf and convinced his brothers that violence was unnecessary and that abandoning him in a chasm would be sufficient (Genesis 37:21-22). Reuben planned to retrieve Joseph from the shaft but while his brothers ate as if nothing was wrong, Judah saw a band of traveling Ishmaelites and motioned to sell Joseph to them (Genesis 37:25-28). Reuben’s rescue was foiled and Joseph was sold into slavery.

As is so often the case, one sin led to another. A problem remained - what were they going to tell dad? The brothers had eliminated Joseph but needed to invalidate the possibility of his return in their father’s mind. There could be no search parties. The brothers engaged in a sophomoric cover up as they slaughtered a goat and covered Joseph’s unmistakable tunic in the goat’s blood (Genesis 37:31). The Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi conjectures that they selected a goat as its blood was most like human blood. They then presented the cloak to their father and careful not to lie, allowed him to make his own conclusions about the fate of his favored son (Genesis 37:32). They inform their father, “We found this; please examine it to see whether it is your son’s tunic or not (Genesis 37:32 NASB).” Even in asking Jacob to identify the tunic, they distance themselves from the scenario by referring to Joseph as “your son” as opposed to “our brother” (Genesis 37:32). The message accompanying the cloak is blunt. There is no compassion nor any attempt to soften the blow.

It is Jacob’s verdict that Joseph was devoured by a ferocious animal, not the brothers (Genesis 37:33). Jacob collapsed under the weight of his bereavement (Genesis 37:34-35). Had the father controlled his grief he might have found it suspicious that the cloak was stained though not torn, but holding Joseph’s bloody garment in his hands, it never occurred to him that his sons were deceiving him just as he had deceived his father (Genesis 27:1-29). Jacob’s giving of the cloak had caused the brothers pain and their giving it to Jacob caused him more. This cruelty demonstrates that the brothers’ contempt was not directed only towards the favored son but also towards the father who favored him.

Did the brothers need to strip Joseph of the tunic? What other “proof” could they have collected? Do you think the destruction of the coat was convenient or did they take pleasure in it? Is it any wonder that Jacob preferred Joseph?

The special coat given by Jacob to his beloved son, Joseph, became the object of the brothers’ hatred, the symbol of their animosity. It was not by chance that their plot included the permanent staining and intentional soiling it of the tunic. It must have been cathartic for the brothers to destroy the garment.

Although Joseph’s coat is mentioned only in Genesis 37, it has become his personal icon (Genesis 37:3, 23, 31, 32, 33). It represents him and in this story quite literally, the clothes made the man. As the cloak caused him so much pain, some scholars have made an acronym of the Hebrew adjective pasim used to describe the coat with the letters corresponding to those who bought him as a slave: Potiphar (Genesis 37:36, 39:1-23), traders (Sokharim, Genesis 37:28), Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:25-28), Midianites (Genesis 37:28, 36).

The Hebrew used to describe the coat is k’tonet pasim. Though the story will forever be branded by the King James Version’s “coat of many colours” (ASV, KJV), the garment has been translated as a “long robe with sleeves” (RSV, NRSV), “robe of many colors” (ESV, HCSB), “tunic of many colors” (NKJV), “varicolored tunic” (NASB), “elaborately embroidered coat” (MSG), “ornate robe” (NIV), “beautiful robe” (NLT), and “fancy coat” (CEV). The only other time this exact Hebrew wording is used describes the garb of a royal princess also in the context of strife amongst siblings (II Samuel 13:18). The first time the word k’tonet (“tunic”) is used is at the dawn of history to describe the clothes God made Adam and Eve following their eating of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:21). There is a tradition that these garments were one and the same, handed down from Adam eventually to Esau, where they were used by Jacob to procure the blessing from his father. The specific history and features of the garment are not as significant as the favoritism is represented.

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) wrote, “Every act of murder seeks to eliminate not only a human being, but also some sort of impediment in the murderer’s path, and most murder motives tend to be based on jealousy or covetousness.” (Westermann, Joseph: studies of the Joseph stories in Genesis, 13). In discarding Joseph, the brothers eliminated a rival to their father’s love and also destroyed the symbol of his priority.

Amazingly, they appear to have gotten away with the crime! Nowhere in Genesis is it claimed that Jacob ever found out what actually happened and they never suffered any tangible consequences for selling their brother into slavery. Though the brothers assume Jacob knew (Genesis 50:17), Jacob makes no mention of this transgression in his final blessings of his sons (Genesis 49:1-27). Had he known, Jacob would no doubt have mentioned the fact in these last words. Even so, it must have been difficult to have such a skeleton in the family closet. As seen by the brothers’ fear after their father’s death, the action (and fear of reprisal) was always with them (Genesis 50:15-20).

Which of the brothers’ actions was crueler - selling Joseph or deceiving Jacob? What is the biggest skeleton in your family’s closet? How does it affect you? God is not even hinted at in Genesis 37. Where was God when these events transpired?

Asa & Mary Baker Eddy (I Kings 15:24)

Who was Jehoshaphat’s father? King Asa.

Jehoshaphat’s father, Asa, was king of Judah (I Kings 15:8-24; II Chronicles 14:1-16:14). The civil war that divided Israel into Judah (south) and Israel (north) was the result of the unreasonableness of Asa’s grandfather, Rehoboam (I Kings 12:1-20). As such, Asa was the third king of Judah.

Asa is one of the few kings of the divided monarchy that receives a favorable review in the Biblical text (I Kings 15:11, 14; II Chronicles 14:2). He reigned for 41 years (II Chronicles 16:13). Spiritually, he reinforced strict national observance of Judaism (II Chronicles 14:3-5; 15:8-15) and even removed his own mother (possibly grandmother), Maacah, for heathenism (I Kings 15:13; II Chronicles 15:16). Politically, Asa stopped a large scale invasion by the Egyptian-backed chieftain Zerah the Ethiopian (II Chronicles 14:9-15) and outbid Baasha, king of Israel, to secure a treaty with Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, to thwart Baasha’s advance on his capitol (I Kings 15:16-22; II Chronicles 16:1-6).

Were someone to summarize your life as the book of Kings did Asa’s, what accomplishments would be listed? What failures? If your mother were sinning (hypothetically, I do not mean to talk about anybody’s mama) would you correct her?

Though Kings chronicles only one criticism of Asa, Chronicles relays three. Each book notes that the high places were not removed during Asa’s administration but both quickly add comments lauding the king’s heart (I Kings 15:14; II Chronicles 15:17). Chronicles adds two opprobriums, both questioning Asa’s total reliance upon God late in his life. The seer Hanani accused the ruler of being overly dependent on his alliance with Aram and Asa imprisoned the prophet in response (II Chronicles 16:7-10). Finally, though both Kings and Chronicles record an anticlimactic foot ailment incurred during his last days (I Kings 15:23; II Chronicles 16:12), Chronicles adds the censure, “His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians (II Chronicles 16:12 NASB)”. Ironically, Asa’s name means “healer” or “physician” in Hebrew.

Some religious groups, most famously Christian Science, have used this latter disparagement as a proof text to reject worldly medicine even during a severe illness. Despite being married to a man named Asa, the case of the Biblical Asa is not found in founder Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910)’s opus Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. He was, however, written about in the publication she founded, The Christian Science Journal. In 1910, Silas Cobb wrote, “there is no record that God or Jesus Christ made use of any material remedy to cure disease; but it is recorded that king Asa ‘slept with his fathers,’ after trying drugs to heal him; which would seem to indicate that it was wrong (The Christian Science Journal,Vol. 28, No. 3, June, 1910).”

Asa is criticized for not seeking the Lord first, not for consulting physicians. It is not an either/or proposition. A physician can be the hands of God in a given situation. Both the Old and New Testaments record servants of God recommending medication. Isaiah the prophet used a “cake of figs” to heal a boil (II Kings 20:7 NASB) and Paul prescribed Timothy “a little wine” to treat a stomach ailment (I Timothy. 5:23 NASB).

Do you believe that God still cures illnesses? Why did Asa, who was devoted to God, not seek divine assistance in this instance? When you get ill, do you pray? What if you deem the illness to be insignificant? Why was this anticlimactic detail included in Asa’s life summary?

Perhaps it was recorded to remind that Asa could not jump like his son Jehoshaphat...

Haggai: The Time is Now (Haggai 1:1)

To what governor did Haggai prophesy? Zerubabbel (Haggai 1:1)

Haggai prophesied from Jerusalem in 520 BCE. His work is canonized as one of the twelve Minor Prophets. The book appears third from last in the Old Testament as its material covers the last days of the era. The Bible includes no biographical details concerning Haggai and he is given no introduction other than designating him as a prophet (Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Haggai 1:1). The book of Haggai is very short, spanning only two chapters and containing just 38 verses. You can hear the entire book read (in a British accent no less) in just 7:16 in this YouTube clip. Haggai is addressed to the governor, Zerubabbel, and the high priest, Joshua (Haggai 1:1). One of Haggai’s primary functions was to motivate a politician. He might even be deemed a lobbyist by today’s standards. Zerubabbel is persuaded and at the book’s conclusion, God refers to Zerebbabel as “my servant” and confers upon him a “signet ring”, a symbol of divine favor (Haggai 2:20-23).

Are any modern lobbyists doing work that might be deemed prophetic? How does Haggai factor into the discussion of the relationship between church and state?

Contrary to popular belief about prophets, Haggai did not speak to the future (not that the book is not useful today). Haggai spoke directly to the present. In fact, Haggai is easy to date (as in place in history as opposed to engage in a romantic encounter) as he documented the dates of his prophecies. Haggai emerged during the second year of Darius I (Haggai 1:1). Based on the records in the book, Haggai’s messages were delivered within a fifteen week period from August 29 to December 18, 520 BCE.

Haggai’s mission was to convince the people and government to utilize new government allowances to rebuild the temple. The question was not if the temple should be rebuilt but when. In any building project, there are nay sayers who wish to delay (Haggai 1:2). Haggai exhorted that the right time was now. The message of Haggai is the message of The Chambers Brothers - “Time Has Come Today” (1968). (Ironically, their eleven minute song has a longer run time than Haggai’s entire book.)

What shelved project have you felt like God calling you to? Is the time now?

Haggai was one of the catalysts behind the rebuilding of the temple. His mission was successful and the temple was rebuilt (Haggai 1:12, 1:14-15). It is unknown what happened to Haggai after his final message but his work was continued by his contemporary, Zechariah. Haggai’s entire work took fifteen weeks. What will you be doing in the next four months?

Elisha and the Killer Bears (II Kings 2:24)

What happened to children who made fun of Elisha’s bald head? Bears ate them (II Kings 2:24)

Elisha was involved in a graphic incident at Bethel in which the prophet’s curse led to the death of his critics (II Kings 2:23-24). The story seems out of character for Elisha who had just completed a mercy mission in Jericho (II Kings 2:15-22) and went to Bethel not to curse, but to bless. Bethel had a history of idolatry as King Jeroboam had promoted pagan worship there (I Kings 12:28-33). Elisha arrived to criticism from a group of youth and cursed the offending parties, 42 of whom were subsequently devoured by bears (II Kings 2:23-24). This troublesome text has often been viewed as a cautionary tale to not harm God’s anointed (Psalm 105:15).

This short horror story has evoked images like the one above from New Zealand caricaturist Graham Williamson and nonbelievers have often cited this atrocity as reason to reject the faith. Not surprisingly, apologists have attempted to soften the story. The mitigating circumstances used to cushion the text include posing that the victims were not children, that their criticism of Elisha had little to do with his bald head and that the bears likely only mauled rather than ate the children.

The age of the bears’ victims is debated. The wording “little children” comes from the King James Version (II Kings 2:23). The standard refutation of this understanding is exemplified by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933):

“Little children” is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression n^e‘urîm q^eţannîm is best rendered “young lads” or “young men.” From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 232).

Ancient Jewish society did consider a male to be a young lad until he reached the age of thirty and the cases Kaiser cites of the use of the Hebrew na’ar (“lads”) are accurate but in this text, the adjective quatan (“small”) is added to na’ar . In response, Kaiser cites the case of David being described by similar terms when he was old enough to serve as a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11-12). Kaiser’s argument is not conclusive as evidenced by the various translations of the text. While different translations make the age of the victims seem slightly different, they all affirm that the victims were younger. The text is alternately rendered “small boys” (ESV, HCSB, NRSV, RSV), “boys” (CEV, NIV, NLT), “young lads” (ASV, NASB), “youths” (NKJV), and “little kids” (MSG). The real issue regarding the age is that of innocense.

Because of the youth of the adversaries and their numeric advantage, Norman Geisler (b. 1932) defends the prophet by attacking the youths: “As best we can tell, this was a violent mob of dangerous teenagers, comparable to a modern street gang (Lee Strobel [b.1952], The Case for Faith, 123).” It has also been speculated that this group was associated with prophets of Ba’al making the text parallel Elijah’s triumph on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:16-40). Coincidentally, Mount Carmel was Elisha’s next destination (II Kings 2:25).

Was the prophet in danger? Even if he was, is the punishment not severe? How does the age of the children effect your reading of the passage? Does your interpretation change if you picture the Hitler Youth instead of elementary school students? Does God ever ordain the killing of children?

The divisive issue was not Elisha’s hairstyle. The prophet is mocked with the refrain “Go up, you baldhead (II Kings 2:23 NASB)”. The command “go up” both mocked the ascension of Elijah (II Kings 2:1-12) and instructed the prophet to leave the premises. The juvenile epithet “you bald head” was then added. Given that prophets’ heads were covered it is doubtful they knew whether or not Elisha was bald. Baldness was rare in the Ancient Near East and could have been associated with leprosy (Isaiah 3:17, 24).

F.W. Krummacher (1796-1868) expounds:

Baldness was regarded by the lower orders as a kind of disgrace; for as it was one of the usual consequences of leprosy, so it was accounted a sign of personal and mental degradation. Hence, in using this opprobrious epithet, the young profligates had a most malicious intention (Krummacher, Elisha, A Prophet For Our Times, 13).

The prophet’s credibility, not alopecia, was the real issue. Their mocking strategically attacked both God’s message and the messenger.

In response, Elisha cursed his detractors “in the name of the LORD” which resulted in two she-bears emerging from the woods to maul 42 youths (II Kings 2:24 NASB). The Hebrew for “cursed” (qalal) does not entail being laced with profanity. It has been speculated that Elisha pronounced a curse similar to the covenant curse of Leviticus 26:21-22. Elisha neither summoned the bears nor called for the youths’ deaths. He merely pronounced judgment on the demonstrators and God decided the form of the response.

Did Elisha intend for the youths to die? What should Elisha have done? What would you have done had you been surrounded by a horde of mockers?

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) sees mercy in the text:

The savagery of wild animals was brutal enough, but it was mild compared to the legendary cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judgment in 722 BC. The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly sever divine judgments that followed it. But instead of turning back to God, Israel, as would Judah in a later day, “mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy” (II Chronicles 36:16). (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 233-34)

While this provides a positive slant on this text, a lot of harm could be done and has been done using this same rationale (Read: The Inquisition).

Even taking the most tame version of the story - a prophet’s ministry was in peril (not a hypersensitive image conscience leader) by a gang of miscreants (not preschoolers) who were mauled (not eaten) by bears - the story is problematic and God appears harsh.

The passage does not bear any resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. How should a Christian handle this text? Why was the misdeed of the youths punished so severely when others in Scripture were not? Is there a moral to this story? Why is this passage included in the Scriptures? Is it simply a cautionary tale?

“We’re all born bald, Baby!” - Telly Savalas (1922-1994)

The Perfect Gift (II Corinthians 9:15)

Who wrote “Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift”? Paul (II Corinthians 9:15)

While exhorting the Corinthians to fulfill their promise to prepare an offering (II Corinthians 9:5), Paul reminded them that all our giving is a poor imitation of God’s generosity (II Corinthians 9:10-15). At the conclusion of his discourse, Paul adds the doxology “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift (II Corinthians 9:15 NASB)!” Paul gets wrapped up in the gift and cannot help but to praise God.

When Paul writes of the indescribable gift, he uses a word not only not found elsewhere in the New Testament but also absent from any extant Greek writing before his time. Apparently, Paul invented a word for the occasion and even when he created a word to describe God’s gift the word meant indescribable. The word he concocted, anekdiegetos, is a negative version of ekdiegeomai which means “to declare, relate”. The word means “it cannot be declared”. Paul is not claiming that one should not describe the gift only that we cannot adequately do so. Anekdiegtos has been translated as “indescribable” (HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV), “inexpressible” (CEV, RSV), “unspeakable” (ASV, KJV), and “too wonderful for words” (CEV, NLT). The Message paraphrases “no language can praise it enough”. God’s gift is beyond words and left the verbose apostle speechless.

Have you ever been rendered speechless by someone’s gift? What is the best gift anyone ever got you? (Anything better than a Lexus or even a Big Wheel?) What is God’s inexpressible gift?

Whether Paul speaks directly of the gift of Christ or salvation is disputed. This argument is superfluous as the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are so linked that they cannot be separated. For the purposes of this post, God’s greatest gift is the gift of his own son to save the world (John 3:16).

It has all the earmarks of a great gift. It is suitable for all occasions. It is appropriate for people of any age, gender or nationality. It is practical yet extravagant. It is thoughtful and was given in love. It required sacrifice on the part of the giver. It had an element of surprise. It will hopefully become a conversation piece and be part of celebrations in the recipient’s life forever. It gave the giver as much joy as the recipient (Luke 15:10). It is a gift the world would not have thought to give itself and could not give itself. It was grace.

Most gifts, no matter how magnificently received at the time, become underappreciated. Do we ever lose sight of the inexpressibleness of God’s gift? Do we, like Paul, still break into praise when considering it? If you had to attach an adjective to characterize God’s gift, what would it be? What will you do or have you done in response to this gift?