A Way with Words (Proverbs 25:11)

Complete: “A word fitly spoken _____________________________________________.” Is like apples of gold in a setting of silver (Proverbs 25:11)

Our culture has many expressions downplaying the significance of words. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. In contrast, Proverbs rightly speaks highly of the value of words. The right word from the right person at the right time is life giving and priceless.

Like apples of gold in settings of silver Is a word spoken in right circumstances. (Proverbs 25:11 NASB)

Apples of gold in settings of silver is an esoteric reference. That’s a good thing, right?

Proverbs periodically utilizes flowers and fruit in analogies related to words (Proverbs 12:14, 13:2, 25:11). Scholars debate which fruit is being discussed in Proverbs 25:11 as some think that the word rendered “apples” (Hebrew: tappuwach) is better understood as grapes or apricots (Proverbs 25:11; Song of Solomon 2:3, 5, 7:8, 8:5; Joel 1:12). Even so, almost all modern translations opt for apples (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV).

The CEV and the Message avoid the fruit discussion entirely by omitting the clause. This is edifying on some levels as the passage speaks not of fruit but rather jewelry. Bruce K. Waltke (b.1930) explains, “Apples of gold (see Proverbs 11:22) was preferred to ‘golden apples’ to connote the probability of their metal, not their color, as the parallel in Proverbs 25:12a shows.” (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 320).”

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) reports, “Though jewelry shaped as apples or apricots...is not extant, pomegranates are a common artistic motif, and a necklace with golden pomegranates was found in Late Bronze Cyprus (Bühlmann 1976:49) (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible), 782).”

The description of the trinket accentuates not just the centerpiece but its framing. In the first episode of the final season of “The Cosby Show”, Vanessa (Tempestt Bledsoe, b. 1973) stuns her parents by abruptly blurting out “I’m engaged!” (Episode: “With This Ring”, 9/19/1991) She then introduces her parents to her fiancé, Dabnis Brickey (William Thomas Jr., b. 1947). As they converse, Vanessa’s parents learn that their daughter has been engaged for six months to a maintenance man at her college who is “knocking on thirty” and who has previously lived with more than one woman. Her father, Cliff (Bill Cosby, b. 1937), explains that he does not like Dabnis but it is not necessarily Dabnis’ fault. He likens their meeting to Dabnis’ favorite meal, a porterhouse steak with no white lines served with crispy potatoes and sauteed mushrooms...served on a used garbage can lid. He exclaims, “It’s in the presentation. That’s the way she brought you here–on a garbage can lid!”

Context is important. Waltke interprets, “A proper decision is likened to golden apples, and the appropriate circumstance to a silver structure (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 320).”

On December 30, 1860, as the United States approached civil war, prominent Georgia politician Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883) implored the president elect Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) to make a public statement. Stephens alluded to Proverbs 25:11 when he wrote, “A word fitly spoken by you now would be like ‘apples of gold in pictures of silver.’” Lincoln reflected on Stephens’ biblical reference and found the principle “liberty to all” to be words fitly spoken. He responded:

The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture. So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. (Lincoln, “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union”, January 1861)

What other words have been fitly spoken? When has someone given you just the right words at just the right time? How would you phrase this proverb in modern terms?

Ironically, the proverb itself is a word fitly spoken situated within a broader canvas, a book of fitly worded aphorisms. The verse has value when standing alone but also has more layers when viewed within its context. Its surface message is simple - words are valuable. Fox paraphrases, “Eloquent words—even when they are reprimands—are like well-crafted jewelry in well-matched settings (Fox, 782).”

The verse’s meaning within the context of Proverbs has been seen by some as the key to reading the book and perhaps the Bible as a whole. From this perspective, Proverbs informs the reader as to how it is to be read – like an expert jeweler fitting a precious stone to a suitable setting.

Knut Martin Heim is one scholar who sees the verse as the key to the book of Proverbs. He even titled his book on the subject Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16.

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) summarizes Heim’s position:

“He believes that scholars make a huge mistake by looking for thematic or logical development within these short units. He says that once a unit is determined it is equally possible to read it from beginning to end, the end to the beginning or from the middle outwards. Nonetheless, the units do provide a context in which the proverbs should be read. The analogy that he provides in terms of the association of proverbs within a unit is from the title of the book which is taken from Proverbs 25:11.” (“Reading Wisdom Canonically”, Canon And Biblical Interpretation (Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, V. 7), 355)

Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) paint this reading with broader strokes:

“The author presents a piece of jewelry, made up of a gold core covered with a silver filigree overlay, as the analog of a parable. The ‘silver apple’ is seen at a distance; coming closer the inner ‘golden apple’ is visible. A parable also has an outer and an inner aspect. In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides makes use of this verse to signal to his intended reader that he wrote the Guide in such a way that its hidden secrets can glimpsed through the filigree of its words.” (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 248)

How important is context when interpreting Scripture? Do you think that a text can have more than one correct interpretation? Why?

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” - Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Saul, Paul and Rebranding (Acts 13:9)

What was Paul’s former name? Saul of Tarsus

When Paul is introduced in the Bible, he is called Saul (Acts 7:58). Six chapters later, while serving with Barnabas in Cyprus, the text nonchalantly mentions that Paul and Saul are synonymous (Acts 13:9).

But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, (Acts 13:9 NASB)

No explanation is given for the alias and no one bestows the Hellenistic name on Saul yet for the remainder of Acts, the narrator speaks only of Paul. The only one who calls Paul “Saul” thereafter is Paul himself and only in repetitions of his testimony (Acts 22:7, 13, 26:14). For all intents and purposes, Saul is no more. Along with the new moniker, henceforth Paul’s name is listed first in each missionary tandem in which he appears, stylistically emblematic of leadership.

Saul’s namesake was Israel’s first king (I Samuel 9:17). Though Acts never mentions the fact, the future apostle (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5) and the former king both descended from the tribe of Benjamin (I Samuel 9:1-2, 21, 10:21, I Chronicles 12:1, 29; Acts 13:29). The connection between name and tribe has led some to speculate that the apostle was a distant heir of the king. Richard H. Bell (b. 1954) writes that “perhaps Paul’s family had a family tree which traced their origin through Ulam [I Chronicles 8:39-40] and Saul...Paul/Saul was therefore named after his most illustrious ancestor (Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel, 13).”

Counterintuitively, the name change does not coincide with Paul’s dramatic conversion (Acts 9:1-19). It does, however, serve a conscious literary purpose. Stanley B. Marrow (b. 1931) comments that “with the commencement of the apostle’s first missionary journey and at an important turning point in his career, the change of name from the very Semitic ‘Saul’ to the Greco-Roman ‘Paul’ should signal a far more significant change for the history of the world (Marrow, Paul: His Letters and His Theology: An Introduction to Paul’s Epistles, 7).” The name Paul was better suited to the missionary’s new Gentile context (I Corinthians 9:20-22).

Philip R. Davies (b. 1945) also sees a further poetic rationale:

“This replay of the persecution of a ‘son of David’ by a Saul might be thought fanciful; yet such a realisation surely did not escape the Benjamite Saul of Tarsus, nor the author of Acts—both of whom exhibit a fondness for scriptural analogies and precedents—nor indeed other reasonably knowledgeable Jews of that time.” (Rezetko, Lim & Aucker, Reflection And Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honor of A. Graeme Auld, 96)

Saul, a name reminiscent of royalty, becomes Paul, meaning “small” or “humble”. The name Paul fits with the missionary’s own belief that “I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (I Corinthians 15:9 NASB).”

Is there significance to the timing of the metamorphosis from Saul to Paul in Acts? Have you ever known anyone who changed their name? If you changed your name what would it be? Why? Why do you think Paul changed his name?

Some have conjectured that the apostle opted for a new Hellenistic name in part because his old Hebrew name had developed a derogatory meaning in Greek. Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and John J. Pilch (b. 1936) explain, “The connotation of the Greek adjective saulos (“loose, wanton”), which described the peculiar walking style of courtesans and effeminate males, might have prompted Luke (and Paul) to prefer to use “Paul.” (Malina and Pilch, Social-science Commentary on the Book of Acts, 90).” This would be the equivalent of modern women who had the proper name “Gay” changing it when the term became associated with homosexuality.

Many other reasons have also been given for the transition. Ben Witherinton III (b. 1951) posits the following theories:

This story may suggest that Paul took the name in order to aid in the process of converting another Paul who was a Gentile and a proconsul on Cyprus, Sergius Paulus...Possibly Παυλος should be seen as a nickname, meaning “the small one.”...Wilson, Paul, p. 30, conjectures that Paul’s Roman name was Gaius Julius Caesar on the basis of his family being one of those enfranchised in Tarsus by Julius Caesar or Augustus. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 310)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds, “Lucian of Samosota tells us of men who changed their names to signify a higher social status (The Cock 14; Timon 22) (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina),223).” C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) contributed that “Saul” was the name in the Antiochan source while “Paul” was better known to most (Barrett, Acts1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 609).

Most scholarship (included the luminaries listed above) concurs that despite common belief to the contrary, the shift to Paul was no change at all. Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-28) and the most probable suggestion for his names is that Paulos was one of the three proper names a Roman citizen would have. Malina and Pilch remind, “This verse does not support the common belief that Paul underwent a name change from Saul to Paul. It was common for members of the house of Israel to have two names: a Hebrew one for insiders, a Greek or Latin name for outsiders (Malina and Pilch, 90).” Barrett summarizes, “Paul is an alternative name, not a newly given one (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 195).”

Paul is mentioned by his Jewish name 22 times, all in Acts. As such, Paul never refers to the name Saul in any of his letters. To read Paul’s letters, it is as if Saul never existed.

Do your friends or family call you something different than outsiders? Are you known by different names in different contexts? Do you think Paul’s name served to distance the character from his previous deeds as Saul? Have you known of any person or business who rebranded to evade a bad reputation? What do you call yourself? How, if at all, has your name shaped you?

“The name of a man is a numbing blow from which he never recovers.” - sociologist Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)

Joseph’s Other Coat (Genesis 39:12)

Where did Joseph leave his cloak? Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:12)

Joseph had a tough time keeping his clothes on. Joseph’s famous garment, his “coat of many colors” (Genesis 37:3), was used as false evidence of his presumed death (Genesis 37:31-33). In reality he was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:27-28) and found his way into Potiphar’s house (Genesis 37:36). Joseph thrived in this new environment and he was left in charge of everything, presumably even Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:4-5). As Robert Alter (b. 1935) quips, “Joseph may suffer from one endowment too many (Alter, The Art of the Biblical Narrative, 135).”

Potiphar’s name is mentioned only twice in the Bible (Genesis 37:36, 39:1) which is fitting as it is his wife who dominates the story. The unnamed woman unsuccessfully attempted to seduce Joseph on a daily basis (Genesis 39:7). (Potiphar’s was the ancient version of a “cougar”.) When her efforts failed, the scorned woman masterfully accused him of attempted rape, got the servants on her side, and kept his coat as evidence (Genesis 39:12-18).

She caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me!” And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside. (Genesis 39:12 NASB)

The word for cloak used here is beged, the most common term for garment in the Old Testament. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) comments:

It appears that it could refer both to an outer garment (II Kings 7:15) and an inner garment (Ezekiel 26:16). According to the end of Genesis 39:12 Joseph left all his beged with Potiphar’s wife, which means he left behind either his outer garment or one of his undergarments...By using beged at this point, the narrator may be implying something about Joseph’s own emotional involvement in the story. He is on the verge of acting faithlessly to his master. Also, it is interesting to note that the homonymous Hebrew verb bagad is sometimes used for marital unfaithfulness (Jeremiah 3:7-8, 20; Malachi 2:14). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 465)

Potiphar’s wife played the game well. She enlisted the servants as witnesses and even by the standards of the Law, a woman caught in rape was off the hook if she sought help (Deuteronomy 22:23-28). Despite his innocense (at least in action if not thought), Joseph was left imprisoned (Genesis 39:20) and Potiphar’s wife was left with the coat. Alter documents, “The Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 87:10 makes the brilliant if somewhat fanciful observation...that she spent the time kissing and caressing it (Alter, 138).”

What historical cases exist of people being convicted on the basis of false evidence? What do you do when you are wrongfully accused? Do you think that it is merely coincidence that discarded garments played a role in both of Joseph’s early trials? Do you think Joseph was entirely innocent in this episode?

Through God’s providence, things worked out well for Joseph (Genesis 39:21, 23, 50:20), Still, in this incident, no good deed goes unpunished and Joseph actually suffers for doing the right thing by resisting his employer’s wife’s advances. In contrast, the Bible records no negative consequences for Potiphar’s wife. Her story ends and she is written out of the text.

Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) included Potiphar’s wife in the eighth circle of hell in his famed The Divine Comedy (Inferno Canto XXX:91-129). Though she does not speak, Dante is told that, along with another perjurer, Sinon of Troy, she is condemned to suffer a burning fever for all eternity.

Is justice served in the account of Potiphar’s wife? Is there always an earthly consequence for sin? How should the Christian respond to the injustice in the world?

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” - Elie Wiesel (b. 1928)

God’s Architecture (Revelation 21:18)

Of what material is the wall constructed in the Holy City? Jasper (Revelation 21:18)

Near the conclusion of Revelation, John records a vision of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-27). He paints a picture of an opulent metropolis. Among the vivid details he provides is a city wall made of jasper.

The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. (Revelation 21:18 NASB)

Jasper is a compact translucent variety of quartz of the type called chalcedony. The name means “spotted (or speckled) stone”. Though commonly associated with shades of red, jasper is an opaque rock that can reflect virtually any color depending upon the mineral content of its original source. The ancient term “jasper” was not as precise as modern nomenclature. George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982) explains, “The word for ‘jasper’ in antiquity was not limited to the type of stone we call jasper, but could designate any transparent precious stone (Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 281).”

There is some debate as to the extent that jasper was used in the composition of the Holy City’s wall. Leon Morris (1914-2006) analyzed a Greek word (used only in Revelation 21:18) and concluded that “the word endōmēsis is unusual, but apparently means that of which the wall was built. In that case, it did not simply have jasper built into it but was built of jasper (Morris, Revelation (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 244).”

Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) counters, writing that “because in the following verse the first of the city’s twelve foundations is made of jasper (Revelation 22:19), it would be well to understand this reference as indicating some sort of inlay of precious stone rather than solid jasper as a building material...In either case it is the splendor and worth of the wall that is so graphically reported (Mounce, The Book of Revelation (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) , 393).”

The building materials of the Holy city are like no human city. Human walls are not built with jasper. In addition to not being cost effective, the mineral breaks with a smooth surface, and as such is used for ornamentation or as a gemstone. Jasper is not used as a primary building material but rather to augment for aesthetic reasons. The wall is indicative of the Holy City’s other worldly quality.

Have you ever seen or heard of any edifice made of jasper? If you could construct your home from any material, what would it be? Why was the Holy City’s wall made of jasper?

This is not the first time that jasper is mentioned in Revelation. More than half of the Bible’s seven jasper references are in it’s final book (Exodus 28:20, 39:19; Ezekiel 28:13; Revelation 4:3, 21:11, 18, 19). The Holy City’s wall harkens back to the heavenly throne room where the One upon the throne appears like jasper (Revelation 4:3) and “before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal” (Revelation 4:6 NASB). As such, jasper is representative of God’s glory and the city exudes the glory of its maker and ruler.

The Holy City’s wall is of God and reveals God. Brian K. Blount (b. 1956) summarizes, “The same glory is symbolically embedded in the city’s very architectural essence (Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 390).”

As Satan has been vanquished (Revelation 20:10) and city walls were designed to protect, why does the Holy City need a wall? Why is jasper associated with God? Have you ever met anyone whose house suited them? In what ways does your home project your essence?

“Architecture is basically a container of something. I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea.” - renowned architect Yoshio Taniguchi (b. 1937)

Timothy’s Mama’s Family (II Timothy 1:5)

What was Timothy’s grandmother’s name? Lois.

At the outset of II Timothy, Paul gives thanks for his protégé and the letter’s recipient, Timothy (I Timothy 1:3-5). In fortifying Timothy, Paul is reminded him of Timothy’s spiritual heritage (II Timothy 1:5, 3:14-15). Timothy’s faithful mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois, are set apart for praise (II Timothy 1:5).

For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. (II Timothy 1:5 NASB)

This verse marks the only time the word “grandmother” appears in the Bible. It is also the only time the names Lois and Eunice emerge in Scripture. Even so, many have found inspiration from their lives. Their names have appeared as commensurate characters in literature. For instance, Lois and Eunice are protagonists in Francine Rivers (b. 1947)’s And The Shofar Blew (2003) and side characters in Kirby Larson (b. 1954)’s The Friendship Doll (2011).

Timothy’s mother is also referenced when he is introduced in the book of Acts (Acts 16:1). Though not named in the passage, she is described as a Jewess and believer though she may have been a lax Jew as she married a Greek (Acts 16:1) and Timothy was uncircumcised (Acts 16:3). As such, her spiritual heritage may have been as much Christian as Jewish.

Paul attributes Timothy’s faith in part to his raising. This is not uncommon. Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) comments, “Faith can be passed on through families. Religious instruction in the family unit is crucial to the transmission of the Christian tradition (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 30).”

Centuries of believers have learned tenets of the faith from their families faith. In Timothy’s case, Paul points specifically his grandmother, Lois.

Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) explains:

The use of the word first (prōton) in this context has been supposed to indicate that Lois was a devout Jewess and was the first to inculcate religious faith in Timothy; in other words from his earliest days he had been surrounded by religious faith. Yet if Christian faith is intended, prōton, may mean that Lois was the first to become Christian, followed by Eunice and her son. (Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 137).

What are the biggest lessons your mother and grandmother have taught you? What women have influenced your spiritual journey? Which of your family members has impacted your faith the most?

Paul traces Timothy’s lineage through his maternal line. Conspicuous by his absence is Timothy’s father. He is not referenced in Paul’s letters and when he is mentioned in Acts he is described as a Greek (Acts 16:1). The way the text juxtaposes him with Timothy’s mother implies that he was a nonbeliever. Paul does not allude to him either because he was dead at the time of writing or more likely because he added little to Timothy’s spiritual life.

Paul, himself, stepped, into the vacuum. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) writes:

“Paul was Timothy’s father insofar as he had passed the faith along to him...in the absence of any mention of Timothy’s biological father, Paul and Eunice are Timothy’s parents in faith. They shared not only their Jewish ancestry (II Timothy 1:2; Acts 16:2) but also a common Christian faith (see Titus 1:4). (Collins, I &II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 193)

Thankfully, Timothy took after his mother. Edith Deen (1905-1994) praises, “The sublime faith of the mother and grandmother seems to have prepared the son for that greatest of all compliments, which Paul later bestowed when he called him ‘my dearly beloved son (II Timothy 1:2). (Deen, All The Women of the Bible, 238).”

How do you trace your spiritual heritage? How much of your faith is your own and how much is your culture’s or parents’? Whose faith are you enriching? Who are your spiritual sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters?

“Everyone needs to have access both to grandparents and grandchildren in order to be a full human being.” - Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Manna: Day Old Disaster (Exodus 16)

Name the day old bread that was no bargain. Manna (Exodus 16:19-20)

During their 40 years wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites faced difficulties in meeting basic human needs and typically responded by groaning against their leadership. One such need was that of food and in the face of the limited supplies they cited longing for the wonderful cuisine they ate while enslaved in Egypt (Exodus 16:1-3). God met their need for sustenance through a mysterious substance known as manna (Exodus 16:4).

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction. (Exodus 16:4 NASB)

In the Old Testament worldview, dew descended from heaven (Deuteronomy 33:28; Haggai 1:10). As such, manna emerged “from heaven” with the morning dew (Exodus 16:13-14).

Manna was a mystery food, its name literally means “What is it?”. Its modern equivalent might be “whatchamacallit”. As is common when describing divine things, the Biblical writers were left to analogies to describe manna as there was no exact correlate. Manna is characterized as “a fine flake-like thing, fine as the frost on the ground” (Exodus 16:14 NASB) and “like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafers with honey” (Exodus 16:31 NASB). Manna was a wonder bread with frosted flakes.

Honey was one of the resources that made the promised land so appealing (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3) and manna can be seen as a foretaste of the Promised Land. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) explains that “describing the manna as ‘like wafers made with honey’ was tantamount to saying that it ‘was the most delicious food imaginable’ (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 384).” The bread from heaven was given to replace the distorted nostalgic view the Israelites had of their Egyptian nourishment (Exodus 16:3).

Some have seen a natural explanation for manna in that sap from a tamarisk tree native to the region that interacts with a lice plant creates a similar product. Though scientific explanations have been supplied, manna possessed the supernatural qualities of always producing the exact amount needed (Exodus 16:17-18) and having twice that amount only on the day before the Sabbath (Exodus 16:5, 22). Its name also signifies that the substance was previously unknown.

The gift of manna did come with some responsibility - God capped the manna intake. God was explicit that the Israelites gather only enough for one day with the exception of the day prior to the Sabbath (Exodus 16:4-5, 16-19). The prohibition was clearly stated and easy to comply with yet it was given in one verse and violated the next (Exodus 16:19-20). The unnamed violators quickly learned the hard way that manna did not have a long shelf life - “it bred worms and became foul” (Exodus 16:20 NASB).

What modern products have minuscule shelf lives? Was the prohibition against hoarding manna due to the perishable nature of the item or was the food’s character created for the prohibition? Why did God limit the amount of manna one could collect? Why did the people violate this law? Are the answers to the last two questions different?

Some have speculated that one of the reasons for the mandate was to spare the people from the food’s quick degeneration. In this way, it fits with similar food consumption laws (Exodus 12:10, 29:34; Deuteronomy 16:34). As God selected the food, it could have just as easily been a nonperishable item. The fact that manna miraculously endured two days when necessary (Exodus 16:5) indicates that quick decay was not one of manna’s intrinsic properties.

Others have suggested that manna taught the Israelites not to waste or hoard and to be content with subsistence. Others have reminded that the way that God supplied manna required the Israelites to work six days a week and in doing so, no one could eat without working (II Thessalonians 3:10).

Before bestowing manna, God acknowledged that the food would provide a test for the Israelites (Exodus 16:4). In providing manna on a daily basis the Israelites had to trust God for their daily bread (Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3). Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) comments, “Israel was taught that this bread came ‘morning by morning’, in God’s time, according to his plan. It could not be stored ‘just in case...’ If one came too late, it had vanished with the heat of the rising sun (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 289).”

As such, for the Israelites, food and faith were intimately related.

Do you trust God to provide your daily bread? Do you recognize that when you eat, God has provided the meal no less directly than for the Israelites in the wilderness?

“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Jesus Slept (Mark 4:38)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gideon: When Less is More (Judges 7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel’s Ouija Board? (Leviticus 8:8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foolish Heart (Psalm 14:1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaron’s Magic Rod (Numbers 17:8)

Whose shepherd’s rod grew buds? Aaron’s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let Justice Roll Down (Amos 5:24)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entertaining Angels (Hebrews 13:2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Saul was Paul (Acts 7:58)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) surmises:

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

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

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

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

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

Reflecting on a Starry Night (Psalm 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fish Story (John 21:11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deborah: Right Man for The Job (Judges 4)

Who was the only woman to judge Israel? Deborah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) explains:

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

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

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

Moses’ Varied Background (Exodus 18:1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoniram The Slave Driver (I Kings 4:6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) explains:

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

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

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

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

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