Gilgal: Stacking Stones (Joshua 4:20)

Where did Joshua set up the twelve stones which they took out of Jordan? Gilgal (Joshua 4:20)

The first big obstacle the Israelites faced after Joshua assumed command did not come from an opposing army but rather a natural boundary - the Jordan River (Joshua 3:1). God allowed Joshua, like Moses before him (Exodus 13:17-14:29), to successfully traverse a large body of water (Joshua 3:1-17). Once successfully on the other side, God commanded that a representative from each of Israel’s twelve tribes procure a stone from the river to be used as part of a monument to commemorate the milestone (Joshua 4:1-7). The place where the stones were stacked was called Gilgal (Joshua 4:20).

Fittingly, the name “Gilgal” is derived from the Hebrew verb galal, meaning “to roll, roll away, roll down, roll together”. Though this is the most famous incident at a place called Gilgal there are several other Gilgals in the Old Testament and debate as to which Biblical references overlap. The Bible also speaks of a Gilgal near Shechem (Deuteronomy 11:30), a Gilgal near Bethel that served as a prophetic headquarters during the time of Elijah and Elisha (II Kings 2:1, 4:38); a Gilgal in the valley of Lebanon (Joshua 12:23), and a Gilgal that served as a border city for Judah between Jericho and Jerusalem (Joshua 15:17). Joshua is even said to have captured a Gilgal (Joshua 12:7) but whether or not this is the same site where the stones were stacked is subject to debate.

Why do people build monuments? What monuments are near you? Why were they built? Who was involved in the decision to build them?

People naturally celebrate milestones in their lives. The crossing of the Jordan River represented a new era in Israelite history. The nation was finally actively pursuing the Promised Land and the event also legitimized the reign of a new leader, Joshua (Joshua 3:7).

What events do you want to commemorate? Do you venerate your own successes or God’s successes through you?

Noah’s Ark’s Mystery Wood (Genesis 6:14)

Of what kind of wood was the ark made? Gopher wood

In one of the Bible’s most well known stories, God saves Noah and his family from a cataclysmic flood by having Noah construct an ark (Genesis 6-8). As the vessel was the first of its kind, God lays out very specific instructions for the ark detailing the building materials, its dimensions and its cargo. Among the ark’s unique features was being constructed from gopher wood (Genesis 6:14).

Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. (Genesis 6:14 NASB)

This is the only time that gopher wood appears in the Bible and no one is quite sure what it is. Its name does not in any way relate to the burrowing North American rodents of the same name but rather is a transliteration of the Hebrew gopher. Some have speculated that gopher is a borrowed word from another language or the work of a careless scribe who meant to write kopher (covering or pitch). The word is literally meaningless today. As it cannot be identified with any certainty many translations simply leave it untranslated (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, RSV).

Some translations make a guess. “Cypress wood” is the most common (NIV, NLT, NRSV) though the Message supplies “teakwood”. Cypress was often used by ship builders of the time. Cypress trees are large and strong and as such could potentially withstand the beating the ark would inevitably take. This interpretation was espoused by Adam Clarke (1760-1832) who found similarity in the Greek word for cypress, kuparisson, and the Hebrew word gopher. Unfortunately there is a unique Hebrew word for cypress (b@rowsh) that could have just as easily been used.

Though Cypress is the most common guess amongst translators, it is far from the only hypothesis. Other trees and plants suggested include pine (Cassuto), cedar, fir, ebony (Bockart), wicker (Geddes), juniper (Castellus), acacia (Religious Tract Society), boxwood, and slimed bulrushes (Dawson). Others have speculated that gopher wood is it an extinct tree that ironically did not survive the flood.

What is not in doubt is that, unlike modern ships, the ark was constructed of wood. Something (trees) died so that humanity might live.

If you had to construct an edifice to protect you from a flood, what building materials would you use? Why do you think God selected gopher wood? What do you think it was? Does it matter what kind of wood the ark was built with?

It was critical that the ark’s inhabitants survive the flood as the fate of humanity (and much animal life) literally rested in the ark. Consequently, John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Victor H. Matthews (b. 1951) assume “This is an unknown type of material, although it undoubtedly refers to some sort of coniferous tree thought to possess great strength and durability (Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy, 27).”

Others have seen gopher as a quality of timber or design as opposed to a type of wood. Ideally, a wooden ship is not constructed entirely from a single species. This is seen as modern wooden vessels are more likely to employ a variety of materials. The CEV takes this safe route and translates gopher wood simply as “good lumber”.

The ark was nothing less than the barrier between life death and God selected the wood to ensure that the people would live.

What is your barrier between life and death? Can your insulation withstand life’s pressures?

Hey, Which Jude? (Jude 1:1)

How many letters did Jude write? One

The Epistle of Jude is one of the seven catholic (or general or ecumenical) epistles of the New Testament. It is the penultimate (next to last) book in the Bible. It is so closely related to II Peter that commentaries often group the books together.

Jude was composed as an encyclical letter, meaning it was a general letter meant to be circulated to various churches as opposed to being written with a specific church in mind. The book is brief, comprised of only one chapter of 25 relatively short verses. The tract addresses apostasy (Jude 1:3-4).

Have you ever read Jude? Have you ever heard a sermon preached on Jude?

Like ancient form dictated, the letter begins with a salutation:

Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,
To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ: (Jude 1:1 NASB)

Exactly which Jude wrote the epistle, if any, has long been subject to debate. The first documented doubts as to Jude’s authorship are found in the writings of Origen (184-253), though he only recorded the skepticism of others rather than asserting his own.

The debate concerning the author’s identity has continued ever since. The usual suspects are Jude the apostle (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), Jude the brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), both, and neither (someone using the pseudonym “Jude.”). Some have argued that since the author did not identify himself as an apostle and actually distances himself from them in Jude 1:17, he cannot be identified with the Jude who is listed as one of the Twelve. Conversely, others have supposed that an apostle would not have made that claim on his own behalf. (That never stopped Paul...)

Others have supposed that it was written by Jesus’ brother as the notation of being “brother of James” would make Jude also the half-brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19). (The reference to brother James has actually created more confusion than clarity.) Since information on Jude is scarce, it would explain the need to identify himself in reference to his more prominent brother.

Those who believe that the letter is pseudonymous note that the epistle’s references to the apostles, tradition, and opposition to Gnosticism fit a later period.

The one consensus is that Jude was not written by the Jude who betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot (Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, 14:10; Luke 6:16, 22:48; John 6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 18:2, 18:5).

Since the material was deemed worthy to be in the Bible, does it matter to you who wrote Jude? If it was not written by a man named Jude, would you discredit it? Supposing the letter was written by, Jesus’ half-brother, why would the author not include this in his greeting? If you had to write a letter about your sibling, what would it say?

Name Value (Proverbs 22:1)

Complete: “A good name is to be chosen rather than ____________.” Great riches. (Proverbs 22:1)

Proverbs 22:1 begins a new subunit of Proverbs. Like many sections of Proverbs, it begins with a charge to acquire wisdom. One of the byproducts of wisdom is acquiring a good name. Proverbs asserts that no amount of riches can compare to the wisdom of the sages.

A good name is to be more desired than great wealth
Favor is better than silver and gold. (Proverbs 22:1 NASB)

Though not always stated explicitly, the value of a good name underlies many of the sayings in Proverbs (Proverbs 10:7, 11:16, 22, 27, 12:8, 13:15, 18:3, 21:21, 27:21). The word “good” is not actually in the Hebrew text of Proverbs 22:1 but is supplied by the translators to make the meaning clearer. The importance of a good name (or reputation) is a biblical concern (Ecclesiastes 7:1; Sirach 41:11-13). Including becoming a great nation, one of the promises God initially makes to Abraham is that his name will be great (Genesis 12:2). Having a good name was of the upmost importance in the ancient world.

Do you think a good name is as valued today as it was in the time of Abraham? When you think of having a good name, who do you think of? Do you think you carry a good name? Which would you prefer, a good name or great riches?

Most people would like to have both a good name and great riches. This proverb juxtaposes the two. Do you feel the two are mutually exclusive? Can you have a good name and great wealth? Which do you think society promotes? What truly motivates you, a good reputation or a substantial bank account?

Where do you spend most of your time and money? That is likely what you value.

“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” - Jesus, Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:16 NASB

Jesus Wept (John 11:35)

At whose death did Jesus weep? Lazarus

Jesus wept. The Bible features two stories that show Jesus being publicly moved to tears. He weeps with Mary and Martha in Bethany at the passing of their brother Lazarus (John 11:35), whom Jesus would soon famously raise from the dead (John 11:43-44). The word John used for “wept” (dakruo) means “to weep, shed tears”. The second instance where Jesus cried was more demonstrative. When he makes his final approach in Jerusalem, Jesus wept over the city (Luke 19:41). The word used in Luke (klaio) means “to mourn, weep, lament”. It is as if a tear trickled down Jesus’ cheek in Bethany while he bawled in Jerusalem.

Though these are the only specific instances in which the Bible records that Jesus wept, Hebrews implies that tears were not uncommon in his life:

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. (Hebrews 5:7-8 NASB)

The passage in John is the most well known passage in which Jesus wept, likely because the action constitutes the entire verse: Jesus wept. John 11:35. It is the shortest verse in all of Scripture. The versification emphasizes it. This sentence could have been attached to the verse preceding it or the following verse. But it is not. It stands alone as if to say that there is something profound in the act of Jesus weeping.

What causes you to shed tears? When is the most you have ever cried? Why did Jesus weep at the news of Lazarus’ death when he would raise him moments later?

Perhaps Jesus cried because he saw his friends suffering. Perhaps he wept because his purposes required him to delay going to Bethany (John 11:6). Perhaps he wept for Lazarus, either because of the suffering he had endured or because he would raise him and as such, die again. Whatever the reasons for Jesus’ tears, they indicate that he cared. The fact that Jesus wept means that Jesus cared.

We do not worship an indifferent apathetic God. We worship a God who cares enough to wish to save us. We worship a God who cares enough to send his own son to make that happen (John 3:16). We worship a God who cares enough to weep for us (Luke 19:41; John 11:35).

Do you believe that God cares for you? Really? Why? Why not?

“Whenever you find tears in your eyes, especially unexpected tears, it is well to pay the closest attention. They are not only telling you something about the secret of who you are. More often than not, God is speaking to you through them of the mystery of where you have come from and to summoning you to where, if your soul is to be saved, you should go to next.” - Frederick Buechner (b. 1926), Whistling in the Dark: An ABC Theologized, 117

Amos: Midlife Calling (Amos 1:1)

Where was Amos the prophet’s home? Tekoa (Amos 1:1)

Many consider Amos to be the first Israelite prophet to have had his work transcribed, though Hosea, Isaiah and Micah contend for this claim. Amos’ visions and prophecies are canonized in the Bible as one of the twelve Minor Prophets.

In the book’s opening verse, Amos is identified his occupation and his location - Amos “was among the sheepherders from Tekoa” (Amos 1:1 NASB). Tekoa was a city twelve miles from Jerusalem in the southern kingdom, situated high upon a hill (2800 feet above sea level). It had been fortified by Rehoboam to maintain order at the time Israel was divided (II Chronicles 11:6, 12). Sir George Adam Smith (1856-1942) surmised “In the time of Amos Tekoa was a place without sanctity and almost without tradition. The name suggests that the site may at first have been that of a camp (Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, 74).”

Though Tekoa is situated in the southern kingdom, Amos’ mission was to the northern kingdom. There is a minority view which claims that another Tekoa existed in the northern kingdom and this is the locale from which the prophet originated. Stanley Ned Rosenbaum (b. 1939) summarizes, “The Book of Amos neither says nor implies that Judean Tekoa was Amos’s birthplace, only that he was (or his words were) known there.” (Rosenabuam, Amos of Israel: A New Interpretation, 32). No such northern Tekoa has yet been discovered by archaeologists.

A facet of Amos’ background that is not debated is that the prophet received no formal religious training. In addition to Amos’ opening verse identifying him as “one of the shepherds of Tekoa” (Amos 1:1 NASB), Amos described himself:

“I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet; for I am a herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs. But the LORD took me from following the flock and the LORD said to me, ‘Go prophesy to My people Israel.’” (Amos 7:14-15 NASB)

The word used in Amos 1:1 which the NASB renders “shepherd” is noqed. James Luther Mays (b. 1921) explains that “Nōqēd probably means ‘breeder and tender of small cattle (sheep and goats).” Though the word is used only one other time in the Bible, to describe Mesha king of Moab (II Kings 3:4), Mayes determines that “The use of nōqēd in the Old Testament and a Ugarit does suggest that Amos was no ordinary shepherd, but a breeder of sheep who would have belonged to the notable men of his community (Mays, Amos: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 19).”

John W. Miller (b. 1926) concurs:

Far then from being a poor herdsman of sheep, Amos may have been one of the more substantial men of his region, and especially so in that he appears to have had a second source of income. The sycamore groves referred to would likely have been some distance from where Amos lived, for to grow properly they required the warmed climate of the Jordan valley where he would have taken his flocks for pasturing when the hills of Tekoa were barren. (Miller, Meet the Prophets: A Beginner’s Guide to the Books of the Biblical Prophets , 45)

Amos’ biographical claims were made in response to his motives being criticized. Amos had no reason to desire an occupation as a prophet as he already had a successful career.

If God called you from your occupation, would you go? Have you ever known anyone who left a profitable job in the private sector feeling called to ministry? Amos was a man without credentials. He had not attended one of the schools of prophets that existed in his day and as such had no professional pedigree. In modern southern parlance, he was a jack legged preacher.

If you served on a pastor’s search committee, would you consider hiring an untrained candidate? Would you be able to hear the voice of God from an uneducated preacher? Do you know any good untrained ministers? Is there any situation where an untrained pastor is preferable? What is the most unlikely source from which you have heard the voice of God?

The Slacker’s Thorny Path (Proverbs 15:19)

Complete: “The way of the sluggard is overgrown with ______.” Thorns (Proverbs 15:19)

As part of the longest collection of aphorisms in the book (Proverbs 15:18-16:8), Proverbs claims that the way of the “lazy” (CEV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV), “sluggard” (ASV, ESV, MSG, NIV, RSV), “slacker” (HCSB) or “slothful” (KJV) is overgrown with weeds:

The way of the lazy is as a hedge of thorns,
But the path of the upright is a highway. (Proverbs 15:19 NASB)

At a time when a donkey was the standard mode of transportation, a thick growth of thorns made travel difficult if not impossible. Proverbs 15:19 uses this imagery of a blocked path to contrast the progress in life made by the lazy and the righteous. While everyone faces difficulty (Matthew 5:45), the slothful face obstacles habitually.

Associating laziness with poverty and diligence with wealth is a recurring theme in Proverbs (Proverbs 6:6-11, 10:4-5, 12:24, 27, 13:4, 15:19). Claus Westermann (1909-2002) conjectured that the first half of the Proverb is older concluding that “the second half of the saying...is a subsequent addition for the sake of parallelism.” (Westermann, Roots of Wisdom: The Oldest Proverbs of Israel and Other Peoples, 19).

Newer or not, the second half of the proverb is more unique as it adds a moral component to the Proverb. Timothy J. Sandoval (b. 1966) analyzes “Proverbs 15:19 is significant as well, for this proverb contrasts the lazy person not with the diligent person but with upright persons...a term that belongs fundamentally to moral discourse (Sandoval, The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, 139).” The implication is that being lazy is immoral.

How would you put this proverb into modern language? Do you identify more with the sluggard or the upright? Is being lazy immoral? Why is the slothful person’s path habitually laden with thorns? Does God place added obstacles in the path of the lazy or is there something inherent in the slothful that summons obstacles?

Many have surmised that the lazy person’s path is blocked because she wishes it to be. Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitsky (b. 1954) write, “The slothful person is unable to act, no matter how much thinking takes place. Wherever such a person looks, problems are seen (Kravitz and Olitsky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 150).” John Phillips (b. 1927) concurs, “He (the lazy person) is continually running into trouble, much of his own making. He never gets anywhere, mostly because he doesn’t want to get anywhere (Phillips, Exploring Proverbs: An Expository Commentary, Volume 1, 439).” This interpretation claims that the lazy person’s life trajectory is constantly impeded because she seek obstacles as an excuse not to work. Do you agree with this theory?

The crux of the passage is to be diligent. Still we must avoid the converse and assume that those who have not succeeded are lazy and undeserving of help. George Grant (b. 1954) claims that Proverbs makes a distinction between two types of poor people, the oppressed and sluggards: “Sluggards waste opportunities (Proverbs 6:9-10), bring poverty upon themselves (Proverbs 10:4), are victims of self-inflicted bondage (Proverbs 12:24), and are unable to accomplish anything in life (Proverbs 15:19). (Grant, In the Shadow of Plenty, 47)” Grant concludes that “true charity” in helping the sluggard “involves admonition and reproof” (Grant, 48).

Just who is qualified to determine who is oppressed and who is merely a “sluggard”? When Christ charges us to help those in need, should we consider such distinctions? How do we ensure that we do not blame victims?

“Then plough deep while sluggards sleep, and you shall have corn to sell and to keep.” - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), “The Way to Wealth” (1758)

Laodicea: Hot or Cold? (Revelation 3:15)

Which church was neither hot nor cold? Laodicea (Revelation 3:15)

Revelation is written to seven churches in Asia Minor (Revelation 1:4). The church at Laodicea is the last of the churches to be addressed and is judged for its poor witness and spiritual condition and called to repentance (Revelation 3:14-22). Laodicea is famously criticized for being lukewarm, neither hot nor cold:

‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.’ (Revelation 3:15-16 NASB)

The Laodicean church was spiritually complacent as they were economically prosperous. The Laodiceans used their advantageous position on a trade route to promote their profitable garment industry. The Laodiceans were known for producing a black wool with a soft silky texture found only in the Lycus Valley. As such, it is significant that Christ implored the Laodiceans to purchase white garments of purity, as opposed to the black for which they were known (Revelation 3:18). The strong language of vomiting them out is used to arouse them from their spiritual slumber (Revelation 3:16).

The use of “lukewarm” has been traditionally interpreted as a critique of the Ladocieans’ lack of spiritual fervor.

What do you think is meant by “lukewarm” in this context? Does the passage support extremism in either direction over moderation? Is sinfulness preferable to apathy?

The traditional interpretation is problematic as God finds being both hot and cold preferable to being lukewarm (Revelation 3:15-16). This reading presents Christ as commending disloyalty.

Scholars have long conjectured that the metaphor of tepid water was drawn from the city’s own water supply. The Laodiceans’ lukewarm water stood in stark contrast to their nearby neighbors. Hierapolis was known for its hot springs and Colossae, where the Laodiceans’ sister church was located (Colossians 2:1, 4:13, 15, 16), featured pure water. Gregory K. Beale (b. 1949) explains, “There is evidence that Laodicea had access only to warm water, which was not very palatable and caused nausea (Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 303)”. To correct this problem, the Laodiceans constructed an aqueduct to a hot springs five miles to the south. The water would have become tepid by the time it reached the city. Like their drinking water, Christ wished to spit it out (Revelation 3:16). Taking this interpretation, hot and cold water would be equally beneficial, as opposed to hot equating with good and cold corresponding to bad. Lukewarm water, in contrast, was useless.

Where would you rate your spiritual condition in relation to being lukewarm?

Amen at the End (Revelation 22:21)

What is the last word in the Bible? Amen.

The Book of Revelation and the Bible as a whole ends with a blessing:

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen. (Revelation 22:21 NASB)

The Bible fittingly ends as most modern prayers do, with the word “Amen”.

Amen is a Hebrew word that has been transliterated into most languages through the centuries. It is a cognate in English, Greek and Latin. Amen has been adopted directly into most languages sounding nearly the same in Mandarin Chinese, Persian, Portuguese, Spanish, etc. Consequently, it has been called the best known word in human speech. It is one of the few Hebrew words which has been imported unchanged into modern liturgy. In fact, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all use the word in worship.

Amen is used so commonly that its meaning is often falsely assumed. As it is used to conclude prayers, many simply suppose that it means “The End”. Others use it to affirm consent, much the way +1 does on Google, the Like button does on Facebook or “true dat” does in the Urban Dictionary.

Both are actually appropriate uses. Amen means “ verily, truly, so be it ”. It appears 30 times in the Old Testament, first in Numbers 5:22. The root of the word comes from the Hebrew ‘aman, which means to support or confirm. The same root produces ‘emuwnah (“faithfulness”). The ancient Greeks coopted the word to mean “truth”, “surely”, “absolutely”.

What does Amen mean to you? Do you say ah-men or ay-men?

The only time the NASB (and most modern translations) record Jesus as saying Amen occurs at the conclusion of Matthew’s version of the Lord’s prayer (Matthew 6:13). The word, however, is very important to the gospel of John. John features 25 sayings of Jesus which are emphasized by the expression “verily, verily” (John 1:51, 3:3, 5, 11, 5:19, 24, 25, 6:26, 32, 47, 53, 8:34, 51, 58, 10:1, 7, 12:24, 13:16, 20, 21, 38, 14:12, 16:20, 23, 21:18). The Greek actually reads “amen, amen”.

When and why do you say “amen”? Does it comply with term’s original meaning?

Nicknaming the Disciples (Mark 3:17)

Who were the sons of thunder? James and John (Mark 3:17).

In Mark’s list of Jesus’ twelve disciples, it is noted that Jesus conferred the name “Boanerges” upon the sons of Zebedee, James and John (Mark 3:17). The moniker is Aramaic, the language Jesus actually spoke, as opposed to the Greek in which the New Testament is written. Mark gives us more glimpses into Jesus’s Aramaic than anyone (Mark 3:17, 5:41, 7:34, 11:9, 14:36, 15:34). Mark translates the name for the reader, “Sons of Thunder”. Boanerges is referenced only here in Mark and never used again in the New Testament.

The epithet’s meaning is ambiguous and its etymology uncertain. Mark gives no explanation as his interest is in the renaming not its meaning. Traditionally the surname has been associated with the brothers’ temperaments, excitable and impetuous, characteristics befitting former sailors. This is consistent with their fiery outbursts later in the gospels (Mark 9:38-41, 10:35-45; Luke 9:49-50, 52-56), especially their offer to call down fire from heaven on a city of inhospitable Samaritans (Luke 9:52-54). It has been speculated that this vehemence translated into zeal and power in their preaching.

James Rendel Harris (1852-1941) analyzed the concept of “Thunder Twins” in his book Boanerges (1913) and demonstrated that the idea existed in diverse cultures throughout the world including Greece, Scandinavia and Peru. Most scholars have focused on a connection to Greek mythology’s Castor and Polydeuces (Pollux), known collectively as Diskouroi or Dioscuri - “sons of Zeus” . As is common in Thunder Twin myths, the brothers had differing paternity as Tyndareus had sired Castor while Zeus produced Polydeuces. Consequently, Castor was mortal and Polydeuces immortal. Castor died in battle and Polydeuces was so attached to his brother that he lost the will to live when his brother died. Polydeuces negotiated with Zeus a chance for a single immortality with his brother. The inseparable brothers’ appearance, in the form of St Elmo’s fire, on the rigging of ships was believed to forewarn escape from a storm.

Ronald Brownrigg (1919-2011) contended that Boanerges was “a title exactly equivalent” to Diskouroi (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946], John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, 40). In addition to the collective nickname, Dennis R. McDonald (b. 1938) identifies several parallels between the two sets of brothers (McDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 29). James was the first disciple martyred (Acts 12:2) and like Castor died a violent death. Like the immortal Polydeuces, John was the last disciple to die and many expected him to live until the Parousia and as such, avoid death (John 21:22). Like James and John, the slain brother, Castor, is named first even though he is the lesser known of the brothers. Like Polydeuces, the sons of Zebedee attempted to negotiate a special place in the afterlife as they asked Jesus to sit at his right and left (Mark 10:35-37). McDonald interprets their having no preference as to which brother is given the more preferential seat as a sign of their brotherly love. Unlike Zeus, Jesus denied the brothers’ request (Mark 10:38-40).

Mark was purportedly written to Rome where Castor and Polydeuces were held in high regard. Some have seen a further connection as Boanerges references the brothers’ relationship to their father and they were the only disciples said to have left their father to follow Jesus (Matthew 4:22; Mark 1:20). Some have seen this as an indicator that they also left Zeus to follow Jesus.

Others have seen Jesus’ naming his disciples as replicating what God did with the Old Testament patriarchs Abraham and Jacob (Genesis 17:5, 15, 32:28, 35:10). Ched Myers (b. 1955) associates the appellation with the apocalyptic idea of being given a new name (Revelation 3:12, 22:4). Hans Bietenhard (1916-2008) relates the name to the potential unbreakable fellowship or mighty witness of the two brothers (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 5:253-61).

What do you think the name Boanerges means? Has anyone ever given you a nickname? What nickname would you most covet? Why did Jesus rename these disciples? Why do people bestow nicknames?

Nicknames are informal names of address usually awarded, not chosen by the recipient. John D. DeLamater (b. 1941) and Daniel J. Myers (b. 1966) explain:

Forms of address clearly communicate relative status in relationships. Inferiors use formal address...for their superiors...whereas superiors address inferiors with familiar forms (first name or nickname. (DeLamater and Myers, Social Psychology, 185)

Sociologist James K. Skipper Jr. (1934-1993) concludes that the use of nicknames implied feelings of intimacy with the person named (Skipper, “The Sociological Significance of Nicknames: the Case of Baseball Players”, Journal of Sport Behavior (JSB), 7(1), 28-38).

We nickname people because we want to make them ours or want it known that they are one of ours.

In Mark’s list of disciples, James and John are listed second and third after Simon, whom Jesus renamed Peter (Mark 3:16). One might think Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, would naturally follow Peter in the list of disciples, but he is usurped by the sons of Zebedee. These three and only these three receive nicknames from Jesus. They formed Jesus’ inner circle and received further intimacy with Jesus than their fellow disciples They were the only witnesses present at the raising of Jarius’ daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1, Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28), and Gethsemane (Mark 14:33).

If you have been given a nickname, how did it make you feel? Do you feel Boanerges was a term of endearment? Who is in your inner circle? Do you refer to each other differently than do outsiders?

Something For Nothing (I Chronicles 21:15)

Where did David see an angel with an unsheathed sword? By the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (I Chronicles 21:15)

Shortly after a pestilence in Jerusalem resulted in the deaths of 70,000 Israelites (I Chronicles 21:15), David saw an angel suspended over the city with its sword drawn ready to strike (I Chronicles 21:15-16). David successfully interceded for the people and God, through the priest Gad, instructed David to purchase the land beneath the angel to build an altar (I Chronicles 21:17-18). The land was the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, known in II Samuel as Araunah (II Samuel 24:16; I Chronicles 21:15).

The Jebusites were to Jerusalem what Native Americans are to the United States - they were the previous occupants prior to David taking the city (II Samuel 5:6-9). Evidently, David respected their property rights as he did not displace them, or as in the case of Ornan, exercise eminent domain when he wanted their property.

When Ornan realized the king desired his holdings, Ornan offered not only his land but also the implements needed for the offering (I Chronicles 21:23). David insisted he purchase the land stating, “I will surely buy it for the full price; for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing (I Chronicles 21:24 NASB).”

According to Samuel, David paid 50 silver shekels (II Samuel 24:24) while Chronicles names the selling price as 600 gold shekels (I Chronicles 21:25). The discrepancy has been explained by claiming that Samuel names the price for only the threshing floor while Chronicles adds the entire property and/or the materials for the sacrifice. Some Rabbinical sources reconcile the discrepancy by suggesting that David collected 50 silver shekels from all 12 tribes (600 total) and that the amount equated with 50 gold shekels (The Talmud on Zevahim 116b).

From either account, it is clear that David paid Ornan more than fair market value as he procured the land as God had instructed (I Chronicles 21:25). This land purchase would prove highly significant as Ornan’s threshing floor would be the future site of the temple (II Chronicles 3:1). As such, the land for the temple had been secured without bloodshed and the location had been selected by God.

What are some of the most important land acquisitions in history? Have you ever purchased a lot to build a house? Can the story of Ornan be used as a Biblical case study regarding eminent domain?

David’s eagerness to pay for the land and not simply take it demonstrates that he understood sacrifice. The king was correct to pay for Ornan’s land and not impose his will on his subject. Still, David’s claim accentuates how difficult it is to accept something one feels they have not deserved. As Americans say, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

This is worth remembering as Christianity is predicated upon accepting grace. As David illustrates, it is our inclination to want to feel as though we have earned what we have. The grace of Christ is not something that can be merited. Consequently, grace is often difficult to accept.

Have you accepted grace? Why? Why not?

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” - Ephesians 2:8, NASB

Quality if not Quantity (Psalm 117)

How long is the shortest Psalm? Two verses (Psalm 117)

Psalm 117 is a psalm of praise. It is the 595th of the Bible’s 1089 chapters, making it the center chapter in all of Scripture. At just two verses in length, it is both the shortest Psalm and shortest chapter in the Bible. The Hebrew text contains only fifteen words.

Praise the LORD, all nations;
Laud Him, all peoples!
For His lovingkindness is great toward us,
And the truth of the LORD is everlasting.
Praise the LORD! (Psalm 117 NASB)

Some have posed that it is a fragment of what was once a longer song. Artur Weiser (1893-1978) concludes, “It is hardly possible that this shortest of all the psalms was originally an independent composition (Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 721).”

Psalm 117 is the fifth of six psalms categorized as an Egyptian Hallel (113-118). These six consecutive Psalms are said as a unit on joyous occasions. It has been assumed that these were the songs Jesus sung on the Mount of Olives before he was crucified (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26).

Despite its brevity, the song fulfills all of the requirements of a classic hymn. James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) and John W. Rogerson (b. 1935) praise:

Although Psalm 117 is the shortest psalm in the psalter, it is nevertheless a classic example of a hymn in that it contains the basic elements, namely, invocations to praise and reasons why the LORD should be praised. (Dunn and Rogerson, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, 421)

Why do you think such a short hymn was canonized? What is the simplest song that holds meaning to you? Has anyone ever made a brief comment to you that was very meaningful?

Psalm 117 contains the unusual aspect of charging all nations to praise the Jewish God. Given the fact that its themes correspond to “Deutero-Isaiah” (Isaiah 40-55), it has been suggested that the Psalm was penned while in exile, as its singers were in the midst of a catastrophic defeat. This is significant as Patrick D. Miller (b. 1935) explains, “The psalm testifies that what prevails over ‘us’ is not the enemy but the steadfast love of God (Miller, Interpreting the Psalms, 72).”

Do you feel God’s love even in the midst of your trials?

Paul on Paper (Romans-Titus)

Who wrote more books of the New Testament than anyone else? Apostle Paul

Paul is credited with writing 13 of the New Testament’s 27 books (48.15%). The books attributed to Paul are Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians. Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus and Philemon. As such, Paul is responsible for 32,407 of the New Testament’s 138,020 words (23.48%). (It is worth noting that Luke/Acts accounts for 37,392 words, more than all of Paul’s writings combined.)

These numbers do not include the book of Hebrews, though the King James Version heads the book “The Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews.” Stanley B. Morrow (b. 1931) critiques succinctly “The title..is rather inaccurate: it is not an ‘epistle,’ nor is it by Paul, nor is it ‘to the Hebrews.’ (Marrow, Paul: His Letters and His Theology, 1986, 50.)”

Though his letters have been influential for centuries, Paul may have not seen his writing as one of the primary aspects of his ministry. In the biographical account of Paul recorded in Acts, not once is he ever seen writing.

The Corinthians evidently recognized a difference between Paul’s writing and his preaching. Paul writes, “Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! (II Corinthians 10:1 NASB)” Paul’s tone indicates that he feels the Corinthians would rather read him than hear him.

Have you ever performed a secondary task which turned out to be more important than what you saw as your primary function? Do you think Paul thought his writing would be his legacy? Have you ever met anyone who projected far better on paper than in person? Do you “sound” differently when you write than when you speak?

Given his impact on the New Testament canon and his influence on the early Christian movement, critics have speculated that modern Christians follow Paul more than Jesus. New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann (b. 1946) even wrote a book titled Paul: The Founder of Christianity (2002).

Who shaped the trajectory of Christianity more, Jesus or Paul? Whose model does your church more closely follow, Jesus’ or Paul’s?

Apollos: Talk Like An Egyptian (Acts 18:24)

Who is specifically mentioned as coming from the city of Alexandria? Apollos (Acts 18:24)

Apollos was a leader in the early Christian movement who is referenced ten times in the New Testament, twice in the book of Acts and eight times in the letters of Paul (Acts 18:24, 19:1; I Corinthians 1:12, 3:4, 5, 6, 22, 4:6, 16:12; Titus 3:13). He influenced the Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:12) and served with Paul in Ephesus (Acts 18:24; I Corinthians 16:12).

The most descriptive picture of Apollos comes from his introduction in the book of Acts:

Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:24-26 NASB)

Apollos makes an abrupt entrance and immediately enters into doctrinal disputes at the synagogue. From his designation as an “eloquent man”(aner logios) to being described as “mighty” (dunatos), Acts leave know doubt that Apollos’ strength was his rhetorical skills.

Despite being remembered most as a great orator, not one of Apollos’ words remains in Scripture. He may have been remembered more for how well he spoke than for what he actually said. Maya Angelou (b. 1928) said, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Who is the best preacher you have heard (other than me, of course)? What made them great? How did they make you feel?

Apollos is the only Biblical character said to be from Alexandria, Egypt (Acts 18:24). This detail has led many to speculate that he was the anonymous author of Hebrews. The Epistle to the Hebrews is better described as a long exhortation or even a sermon (Hebrews 13:22). The first to posit the theory that Apollos was the preacher who delivered it was the great reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546 ,Sermons 6.167). As this selection fits with many aspects of modern scholarship that developed centuries later, Luther’s hypothesis has been deemed a lucky guess.

Though there is not a lot of data regarding Apollos, it is suggestive and fits all of the assumptions that scholars have deduced about Hebrews’ author. It has been assumed that the author was highly educated, probably formally trained in rhetoric, as the Greek is the most sophisticated in vocabulary and style of any book in the New Testament. It has also been assumed that the writer was a powerful preacher whose style could be differentiated from Paul’s (I Corinthians 1:12). As Hebrews sets to establish Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises, especially Psalm 110, it has been concluded that the author was also well versed in the Scriptures. Apollos fits all of these assumptions (Acts 18:24-26).

For the many who support Apollos as the book’s author, his connection to Alexandria is the telltale fact. It has been surmised that the Hebrews penman did not speak or write in Aramaic or Hebrew due to the extensive use of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was composed in Alexandria.

More strikingly, many have seen Alexandrian theology as having shaped Hebrews. Alexandria, with its exhaustive library, was one of the academic capitols of the ancient world. It was known as a center for Platonic philosophical studies. Many have found that the theology of Hebrews mirrors its Alexandrian predecessor, Philo Judaeus (20-50), and successor, Clement (150-250). Even the literary style of Hebrews is comparable to Philo. Harold W. Attridge (b. 1946) concludes: “...there are undeniable parallels that suggest that Philo and our author (of Hebrews) are indebted to similar traditions of Greek-speaking and -thinking Judaism (Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), 29).”

Given the evidence, many scholars have jumped on Luther’s bandwagon and supported his brilliant guess. Even so, the conclusion is not unanimous. While Hebrews contains strong similarities with Alexandrian thought, some scholarship has seen the divergences to be equally great (David L. Allen (b. 1957), Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, 44). In his foundational study, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1970), Ronald Williamson even argues against the influence of Platonism. The biggest complaint, however, against Apollos penning the work is that no early tradition argued for it, not even the Alexandrian school (Pantaenus [d. 200], Clement [150-215], Origen [184-253], Dionysius [d. 265], Athanasius [296-373]).

We will never know for certain who wrote Hebrews. Later Alexandrian scholar Origen (184-253) famously wrote “But as to who actually wrote the epistle, God knows the truth of the matter (Eusebius [263-339], Historia Ecclesiastica, 6.25.11-14).”

Despite the argument being inconclusive, it is telling that one of the primary supporting factors for Apollos having written Hebrews is the place of his birth. It is assumed that our own place of origin impacts our theology.

How does the area you in which you were raised affect your religious beliefs? Were you born elsewhere, how difficult would it be for you to believe as you do? Are you sensitive to this factor when presenting your views to others with different backgrounds?

Ichabod: Named in Despair (I Samuel 4:21)

Who named her child Ichabod? Phinehas’ wife (Personally, I would have also accepted Mrs. Crane.)

The name Ichabod resulted from a tragic chain of events that began on a battlefield pitting the Israelites against the Philistines. 30,000 Israelites, including the high priest of forty years, Eli, and his sons, Phinehas and Hophni were lost (I Samuel 4:10-11). Even more damningly, the Ark of the Covenant fell into enemy hands (I Samuel 4:11). The shock from so much loss induced premature labor in Phinehas’ unnamed pregnant wife (I Samuel 4:19). This resulted in her death but not before she gave birth to a son (I Samuel 4:20-22). The Bible allows the reader into the privacy of the birth chamber as she bestows her son with the memorable name, “Ichabod” (I Samuel 4:21).

And she called the boy Ichabod, saying, “ The glory has departed from Israel,” because the ark of God was taken and because of her father-in-law and her husband. She said, “The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God was taken.” (I Samuel 4:21-22 NASB)

The name was no less peculiar to the original Hebrew audience than to contemporary readers. No one else in the Bible bears the ignominious name. Ichabod means “no glory” or “inglorious”. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (b. 1945) has argued that the name means “Where is (the) glory?” or “Alas (for the) glory!” (McCarter, I Samuel: The Anchor Bible, Vol. 8, 116). Ichabod certainly had an inglorious beginning as in his first day of life, he lost his parents, grandfather, and even the Ark of the Covenant, the representation of the glory of God.

Though many give their children Biblical names, few ever christen their child Ichabod. As there is a certain poetry to his birth narrative, the name Ichabod did find its way into significant 19th century literature. T.H. Huxley (1825-1890, “A Liberal Education”) and Anthony Trolloppe (1815-1882, Barchester Towers, p. 452) used the name as an exclamation and Charlotte Brontë (1816-1855) referenced Ichabod in her novel, Villete (p. 284). The poem “Ichabod” by John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892) expressing the author’s lament over abolitionist Daniel Webster (1782-1852)’s support of the Missouri compromise, is a staple of American Literature. Ironically, the name’s most famous use, in Washington Irving (1783-1859)’s short story The Legend of Sleep Hollow, does not draw upon the Biblical text but rather an acquaintance of Irving, U.S. army captain Ichabod Bennet Crane (1787-1857).

Does your name have meaning? What is the worst name you have ever heard? If you have children, why did you name your kids as you did? Where is the glory? Have you ever felt such utter despair as did Phinehas’ wife?

Phinehas’ wife understood profoundly the consequences of her situation. There is a double saying at the end of her story as Phinehas’s wife says not once, but twice that “the glory has departed from Israel” (I Samuel 4:21-22 NASB). Despite her great personal loss, Phinehas’ wife emphasized that the real tragedy her child’s name commemorated was the big picture - the lost Ark. There could be no greater tragedy than the departing of God’s presence.

Even the joy of a child did not ease her despair. She thought her son had no future. Like many modern couples, she doubted that she wanted to bring a child into the world in the state it was in, especially into a nation that was seemingly powerless.

In naming Ichabod, he was marked for life, a walking reminder of a catastrophic day. A woman naming her son after dreadful circumstances is not unique in the Old Testament. As Rachel died during childbirth, she attempted to name her son, Ben-oni (“son of my sorrow”) but the child’s father, Jacob, overruled her and renamed the son as he is remembered - Benjamin (Genesis 35:18). Jabez, whom Bruce Wilkinson (b. 1947) immortalized in his book The Prayer of Jabez, was named “sorrow” by his mother “because I bore him with pain” (I Chronicles 4:9-10). The miserable circumstances of Ichabod’s birth were more widespread than these other cases as everything in Israel had seemingly crumbled. Ichabod would forever be tied to the past with a name synonymous with shame.

We know little of Ichahod’s life or whether his name was a detriment to him. No action of Ichabod is recorded in Scripture and his name appears only twice (I Samuel 4:21, 14:3). It has been suggested that he gained prominence as Ahitud is later described as being Ichabod’s brother (I Samuel 14:3). Recognizing someone by a sibling (as opposed to a parent) is rare. What is clear is that Ichabod lived.

Phinehas’ wife saw her situation as hopeless. Life as she knew it was indeed over. But life was not over. Though his family died, Ichabod lived. Ichabod is a picture of life out of death. His name should be a reminder that what we see as hopeless is never so, as long as we have a God who can bring forth life from death.

Have you ever felt that God departed from you? What reminds you of bad times? What thoughts get you through those bad times? How do you avoid despair?

“Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.” - Pope John Paul II (1920-2005)

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)