A Scandalous Message (I Corinthians 1:23)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) relays:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walter Eichrodt (1890-1978) philosophizes:

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

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

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

Healing at Bethesda (John 5:2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leon Morris (1914-2006) analyzes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangling with Ms. Wrong (Proverbs 5:22)

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

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

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

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) interprets:

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

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

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

Leo G. Perdue (b. 1946) explains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke: Beloved Physician (Colossians 4:14)

Which early disciple was a doctor? Luke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacob: Burial and Growth (Genesis 35:4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shmuel Klitsner adds:

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

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

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

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

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

Revelation and Recession (Revelation 22:2)

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

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

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

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) summarizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) expounds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amos: Calling them Cows (Amos 4:1)

What prophet called the women of Samaria “cows” or “kine”? Amos (Amos 4:1)

Amos prophesied to the northern kingdom of Israel (Amos 1:1). In imploring his audience to listen, Amos famously used the politically incorrect designation “cows” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or the more antiquated “kine” (ASV, KJV) (Hebrew: parah) to describe the pampered citizens of Israel (Amos 4:1).

“Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria, Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, Who say to your husbands, “Bring now, that we may drink!” (Amos 4:1 NASB)

Charles L. Aaron, Jr. (b. 1956) admits that Amos 4:1-5 contains “two oracles that employ a rhetorical strategy that contemporary Christian preachers would likely reject. Both oracles use mockery and insult to make their point (Aaron, Preaching Hosea, Amos, and Micah (Preaching Classic Texts), 58).”

The expression is not arbitrary nor are the cows that the prophet describes. Amos does not merely call his listeners kine but “cows of Bashan”. This designation represented the prize cattle of the day. Comparing the moniker to the terms of endearment used in the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 1:9, 2:9, 4:5, 7:3), James Luther Mays (b. 1921) does not see the term as demeaning:

The epithet was not in itself an insult. Bashan in Transjordan was noted for rich forests and pastures, and particularly for fine cattle (Deuteronomy 32:14; Psalm 22:12; Ezekiel 39:18); Bashan was a hallmark of quality. Nor in the idiom of ancient eastern flattery would women be offended at being called ‘cows’; one has only to remember the terms used for compliments in the Song of Songs. The Bashan-cows are the women of quality in Samaria, the pampered darlings of society in Israel’s royalist culture.” (Mays, Amos : A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 72)

Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) counters, “While it is true that ancient terms of flattery sometimes seem strange in our ears (many mention the endearments of the Song of Songs in connection with this passage), it is evident that Amos’s purpose here in not flattery but sarcastic indictment. Amos intends to be rude. The high-born, well-bred women of Samaria with their luxurious and decadent lifestyles are addressed as fattened and pampered beasts (Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (Westminster Bible Companion), 201).”

Many interpreters read Amos as categorizing women with a term that is degrading to the modern ear. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) defends, “Interpreters mostly understand Amos to be singling out the wealthy women in Samaria, but the female element may also be figurative, making it the wealthy of Israel who were trampling the poor and, therefore, included in the condemnation. According to this interpretation, the subsequent reference to ‘husbands’ would be part of the image (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah - An Exegetical Commentary, 176).” As such, “cows of Bashan” refers at least to women but may not limit itself only to women.

In The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, Carol Ann Newsom (b. 1950) and Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) explain:

Two aspects of these verses may sound more misogynistic to modern readers than they were originally intended. Amos may well have meant to deliver a stinging denunciation of what he understood to be the women’s attitudes and behavior toward the poor, but yet without any intent gratuitously to insult their bodies or their relationships with their husbands, as commentators often assume. “You cows of Bashan” was almost certainly not meant as derogatorily as it sounds in English, though the precise nuance in Amos’s mind is not clear. (Newsom and Ringe, 221)

“Cows of Bashan” should be interpreted proverbially, not as a sexist barb. Amos uses the expression because the shoe fits. Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) expounds, “‘Cows of Bashan’ is a fitting symbol for these wealthy women...These pampered self-indulgent, and bossy ladies maintain their lifestyle by exploiting the poor, crushing the needy, and speaking demandingly to those around them (Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah).”

Amos called them like he saw them and he saw cows of Bashan. That being written, I would advise not calling modern women “cows”.

Do you think being dubbed Bashan cows was offensive to the original audience? What region today is known for its quality cattle? What politically correct analogy would you have used in lieu of “cows”? Should preachers always be politically correct?

The potentially insulting epithet the prophet invokes should not distract from the real issue - what the metaphor represents. It is significant that the proclamation is written to Israel’s lush northern kingdom (Amos 1:1). Contrary to many misconceptions of the area, the region east of the Sea of Galilee is choice.

Jörg Jeremias (b. 1939) points out:

The high plateau of Bashan (500-600 meters elevation) east of the Sea of Galilee (modern en-Nuqreh in Syria, though it probably includes the Golan Heights) is an extremely fertile pastureland because of its basalt soil and plentiful rainfall and was famous for its ‘fatlings’ (Ezekiel 39:18; Deuteronomy 32:14) and its mighty bulls (Psalm 22:12). (Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 63)

This fertile region was enjoying great prosperity under Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1, 7:9, 10, 11). It was the best of times. But not for everyone. Not only did the worldly blessings not trickle down to the poorest members of society, but the rich trampled on the poor to attain their wealth (Amos 4:1). Amos is not necessarily preaching against being rich but rather the selfish means by which Israel’s wealthy acquired their abundance. As Jesus asked, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul (Matthew 16:26 NASB; cf. Mark 8:36)?”

James Luther Mays (b. 1921) clarifies:

The luxury and debauchery of urban affluence in Israel was a scandalous offense to the God for whom Amos spoke (Amos 6:4-7; 3:10, 15). The offense lay not just in its stark contrast to the condition of the poor, but in the fact that the affluence was built on the suffering of the needy. (Mays, Amos : A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 71)

Who today lives high on the hog at the expense of those less fortunate? Is this sin perceived as grievous in the United States as it should be?

“The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure.” - B.C. Forbes (1880-1954), founder of Forbes Magazine

The Writing on the Wall (Daniel 5:25)

What message did Belshazzar see on the wall and ask Daniel to interpret? Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin (Daniel 5:25)

In his first appearance in the Bible, the Babylonian king Belshazzar hosted a drunken feast (Daniel 5:1). The ruler beckoned goblets looted from the Jerusalem temple and toasted his gods (Daniel 5:2-4). The revelry soon took a turn for the macabre when a disembodied hand crashed the party (Daniel 5:5). The hand inscribed a short, esoteric message on the king’s wall (Daniel 5:5, 25).

“Now this is the inscription that was written out: ‘MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.’” (Daniel 5:25 NASB)

Most translations leave the divine graffiti untranslated to maintain the original audience’s confusion. While the first three words are the same in all translations, the last term typically either follows the Masoretic text (upharsin, ASV, CEV, KJV, NASB, NKJV) or renders the term parsin (ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or peres (MSG). They are actually synonymous as in Hebrew the conjunction “and” is added to nouns as a prefix so upharsin simply means “and parsin”.

After Belshazzar’s men failed to decode the inscription (Daniel 5:7-12), the increasingly agitated king summoned the prophet Daniel to interpret the message (Daniel 5:13). Daniel gave it to Belshazzar straight, informing the monarch that the words were as ominous as the gesture that wrote them (Daniel 5:18-28). The prophet delineated the cryptic words:

“This is the interpretation of the message: ‘MENE’—God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. ‘TEKEL’—you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. ‘PERES’—your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:26-28 NASB)

Norman W. Porteous (1898-2003) summarizes, “The mysterious hand had written not so much in warning as in judgment.” (Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 81). For Belshazzar, the party was over.

There has been much discussion regarding the meaning of the words written on the wall. Apart from Daniel’s elucidation, the terms themselves are merely words strung together in such a way that some have even posed that apart from the prophet’s reading they are gibberish. The most common theory is that the nomenclature corresponds to coins.

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) explains:

since the late nineteenth century, a great number of scholars have accepted the theory that the three words are weights of coinage: MENE signifying a mena, TEKEL simply an Aramaic spelling of shekel, and PERES a reference to half a mena. Even though such a series is peculiar in the sense that the ratio between the three coins is something like sixty to one and thirty (the middle term, shekel, being the least valuable of the three or four coins), a great many scholars nonetheless have agreed that the riddle is based upon such a series and that Belshazzar is presented a mysterious inscription which in modern terms might read, “(A half dollar), a half dollar, a penny, and two bits.” (Two bits would be more appropriate than “a quarter” since the word parsin is apparently a duel form of the word peres, “half.”) (Towner, Daniel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 75)

David Instone-Brewer (b. 1957) has speculated that the hand wrote in cuneiform numerals and that Daniel translated them into Aramaic (“Mene Mene Teqel Uparsin: Daniel 5.25 in Cuneiform”, Tyndale Bulletin 1991 42.2 pp. 310-316). Even if the words were recognizable, the onlookers did not hold the key to decipher their meaning and their significance was lost on the observers (Daniel 5:7-9).

Why would God accompany such a dramatic straightforward gesture like a disembodied hand with an equally esoteric message? Why does God not act so demonstratively in the modern world? Does Daniel have any sympathy for the recipient of his oracle? Why is mene written twice when tekel and parsin are transcribed only once?

The stunned king was given a death sentence and God’s word was final. Stephen R. Miller (b. 1949) comments, “‘Mene’ was written twice to stress that the divine decision was certain of fulfillment. So the message literally reads ‘Numbered, numbered, weighted, and divided (Miller, Daniel (The New American Commentary), 165).”

Zdravko Stefanovic (b. 1957) adds, “Although Daniel has read the words as nouns, in his interpretation he treats them as verbs—given here [Daniel 5:26] in the perfect tense. The use of the prophetic perfect suggests finality (Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 195).”

The prophecy against the doomed king was quickly realized. That very night Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Mede assumed the throne (Daniel 5:30-31).

The idiom “the writing is on the wall” as a portent of doom entered the English lexicon from this passage (Daniel 5:1-31). It was seen as early as 1720 when Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) utilized it in his poem “The Run Upon The Bankers”.

When have you seen the handwriting on the wall? How did you respond?

“Man is a strange animal. He generally cannot read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it.” - Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

Set Apart To Being Together (Hosea 6:1)

Which prophet said, “Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heals us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up”? Hosea (Hosea 6:1)

Hosea prophesied about Israel’s unfaithfulness towards their faithful God. Though this theme is consistent throughout, during the course of the book the scene shifts at the outbreak of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (Hosea 5:8-7:16). This conflict resulted in the northern kingdom of Israel falling to the juggernaut Assyrian army.

James Luther Mays (b. 1921) pinpoints:

The references to contemporary events in Hosea 5:8-6:6 fit the situation in Israel during the time after the Assyrian attack had begun, just before and after 733. The sayings are addressed to both the northern and southern kingdoms, with the former called Ephraim throughout. (Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 87)

Amidst the wartime material, Hosea includes a famous song of penitence (Hosea 6:1-3) which reflects the belief in God’s ability to resurrect the nation’s life. The song begins:

“Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.” (Hosea 6:1 NASB)

Hosea 6:1-3 is closely connected to the preceding chapter (Hosea 5:11-15) as the song alludes to festering wounds (Hosea 5:13) and “torn us” continues the analogy of God acting the lion (Hosea 5:14-15).

James Limburg (b. 1935) explains that these verses (Hosea 6:1-3):

Contain a song of penitence, picking up the medical imagery of Hosea 5:13 and expressing exactly what was called for in Hosea 5:15. Rather than going to “Dr. Assyria” for help...the people of Israel are urged to seek help from the true Physician, the Lord. If they repent, their fortunes will be reversed, just as surely as the dawn comes each morning and the showers come each springtime! (Limburg, Hosea-Micah (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 27)

In addressing their predicament, the prophet asserts that the biggest national crisis is not the imposing Assyrian army but the peoples’ relationship with God. As such, the song urges Israel to seek assistance from God instead of military alliances. James Merrill Ward (b. 1928) speculates that “the expectation...that the healing will take place on the third day [Hosea 6:2] implies that the occasion is a pilgrimage festival at the central sanctuary (Ward, Hosea: A Theological Commentary, 118).”

The primary problem with the song (Hosea 6:1-3) is not its theology but its sincerity (Hosea 7:14). In his acclaimed novel, Blood Done Sign My Name: A True Story, Timothy B. Tyson (b. 1959) writes, “If there is to be reconciliation, first there must be truth (Tyson, 10).” The biggest issue regarding Israel’s song of penitence is whether the prayer conveys truth.

J. Andrew Dearman (b. 1951) explains:

The question is whether Hosea 6:1-3 is the speech of the people that the Lord longs to hear while waiting in his place (Hosea 5:15), and is thus composed by Hosea to represent true repentance (if only Israel would embrace it!); or whether Hosea 6:1-3 is something that Israel is proposing but in an inadequate way. A decision between the options is difficult. With regard to the witness of the book, the result is crystal clear: whether repentance is inadequately expressed or offered as advice to Israel, the people failed the loyalty test. (Dearman, The Book of Hosea (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 191).

Based upon God’s rejection (Hosea 6:4-7), most conclude that Israel’s song of penitence was not wholly sincere. Ehud Ben Zvi (b. 1951) wrestles, “On the one hand, Hosea 6:1-3 represents what postmonarchic Israel should think and do. As an interlude, it provides an important teaching to the community. Nothing in the text per se suggests that Israel is insincere in Hosea 6:1-3. Yet within the literary context Hosea 6:1-3, in a seemingly unexpected manner, leads to YHWH’s negative response in Hosea 6:4-7 (Ben Zvi, Hosea (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 144).”

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) adds, “Hosea 6:1-3 sounds rather more like genuine repentance that is urged but not followed, than like the empty words of insincere hypocrites. Whatever the interpretation, clearly God is not impressed with mere words and religious observance (Carson, For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God's Word, 31).”

Some have seen subtle clues behind the song’s beautiful words that betray its true motives. The Israelites’ concern is healing, not cleansing; happiness, not holiness; an improved circumstance, not a matured character. James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) inspects: “The essential elements of a true confession are missing in Hosea 6:1-3. First, there is no reference to sin. There is an acknowledgment of the consequences of Israel’s sin...A second missing element is a personal relationship with God. This is seen in the mechanical way the people conceive of God’s restoring them (Boice, Come to the Waters: Daily Bible Devotions for Spiritual Refreshment, 147).”

Who is speaking in this passage? Does Hosea 6:1-3 represent true repentance? What clues reveal the speakers’ earnestness? Do national events still reflect spiritual realities?

While the motives behind Israel’s song of repentance are questioned, the passage’s theology is not. The prophet offers a message of hope - the relationship between Israel and God is still salvageable. Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) clarifies, “This hope is based on his [God’s] earlier promises to restore those who turn from their evils ways and repent (Hosea 2:16-23, 3:4-5; cf. Deuteronomy 4:25-31, 32:39) (Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah).”

The passage hints that if God tore the Israelites, it was so that they could be mended. Some bones must be broken before they can properly heal. The Israelites could become strong in the broken places. The possibility existed that they were set apart to be together.

Caleb Oluremi Oladipo (b. 1955) writes of Christianity’s role in the improbable racial reconciliation in South Africa:

In South Africa...the Church was in captivity under apartheid, and the unjust social structures were reinforced and legitimated under the banner of Christianity...At the same time, the constructive roles of mission in Africa cannot be ignored...What is clear is that the Christian faith has renewed its destiny in South Africa, providing an opportunity for a society fractured by the racist ideology of apartheid to come together. (Oladipo, The Will to Arise, ix).

The same religious text that had been wrongly used to divide a nation was also properly used to reunite it.

If God could reunite South Africa, is any relationship unsalvageable? What is the most improbable reconciliation you have witnessed or heard of? Was Israel torn so that it could be better mended? Is a person’s relationship with God ever unsalvageable?

“I would hope that understanding and reconciliation are not limited to the 19th hole alone.” - Gerald R. Ford (1913-2006)

Citizen Paul: Trusting The System (Acts 24:7)

What was the chief captain’s name who rescued Paul from the mob in Jerusalem? Lysias (Acts 24:7)

When Paul’s nephew learned of an assassination plot on his uncle’s life, he immediately alerted the imprisoned apostle (Acts 23:12-16). In turn, Paul sent the lad to Lysias, the commander responsible for him (Acts 23:17-19, 26). Lysias acted swiftly and went to great lengths to ensure his prisoner’s safety (Acts 23:22-35). At Paul’s trial the prosecutor, Tertullus, lamented:

But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him [Paul] out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you. By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him.” (Acts 24:7-8 NASB)

Lysias ensured that Paul received due process of law.

While Lysias was certainly largely responsible for Paul’s safe arrival to his trial, Tertullus’ implicating of Lysias does not appear in all of the early manuscripts. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) explains, “The so-called Western text of Acts adds the following after ‘and we seized him’ (Acts 23:6): ‘and we would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come before you.’ It is not readily explainable why later copyists would have struck these words had they been a part of the original text of Acts (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 445).”

Outside of his intervening on Paul’s behalf, Lysias is unknown in the Bible. The text does inform that he was also referred to as Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26). I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) speculates:

Claudius will be the Roman name which he adopted when he became a citizen, and was probably chosen because it was the reigning emperor’s name. Lysias will then be his original Greek name, which became his cognomen on his assumption of Roman citizenship; it may indicate that he came from the Greek-speaking coastal area of Samaria. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 371)

Lysias was a man of authority, a chilarchos, a position translations variously interpret as “commander” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT), “tribune” (ESV, NRSV, RSV), “chief captain” (ASV, KJV) or “captain” (MSG).

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) describes:

The chiliarchos (“leader of a thousand”) is the head of a “Cohort” (speira) which ideally consisted of a thousand soldiers, though the numbers in reality could vary. Since this unit could muster two centurions and some four hundred and seventy soldiers as an escort for Paul’s journey to Caesarea (Acts 23:23), it must have been at full strength. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 382)

Despite being relatively high on the chain of command, in the Bible, Lysias is a middle man. He intercedes on Paul’s behalf by writing a letter to his superior, governor Felix (Acts 23:26-30).

Has anyone ever written a letter of recommendation on your behalf? Who has interceded for you? Why does Lysias go to such great lengths to aid a prisoner? Lysias could not afford to lose a prisoner, but especially not one of Paul’s social standing. Most commentators concur that Lysias acted as he did in part due to social convention, namely that Paul was born a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37, 38, 22:25, 26, 27, 29, 23:27). Lysias himself admits that the turning point in his attitude toward Paul came when he learned that the prisoner was a citizen (Acts 23:27).

Not only was Paul a Roman citizen, but a lifelong one; an important factor in the relationship between jailer and prisoner. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) notes: “Since it was customary to take the name of the emperor in whose reign citizenship was acquired, the tribune’s name, Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26), may suggest the time of his purchase, namely, during Claudius’s reign (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 194).” As Claudius was a contemporary ruler, Lysias’ citizenship was likely a relatively new development.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) speculates,

That Paul was a Roman citizen by birth...threatened great damage to Claudius Lysias’ person and career...a severe breach of social convention would have been involved if a more “honorable” Roman citizen had been mistreated by one who had merely bought his citizenship...Probably Lysias had worked his way up through the military ranks but would have been barred from the rank of tribune because he was not already a citizen of equestrian rank. He solved this problem through a bribe. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 681.)

In short, most believe that Lysias aided Paul in deference to his higher social status. If this is the case, not much has changed in two thousand years.

Throughout the plot to ambush him, Paul trusted the government and in fact, worked the system for passage to Rome. When the conspirator’s plot reached him, the apostle trusted his captors to do the right thing. This seems consistent with Paul’s public stance on the Christian’s relationship to the government (Romans 13:1-7).

Paul lived by the system and he would eventually die by the system as well. Tradition asserts that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero at Tre Fontane Abbey.

Have you ever changed your attitude towards someone based upon acquiring a new piece of information about them? Do you trust the system to work for you? Should you? Would Paul have trusted the government as much had he not been a Roman citizen? For Paul, was trusting the government an extension of trust in God?

“The trust of the people in the leaders reflects the confidence of the leaders in the people.” - Paulo Freire (1921-1997), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 169

In-law Helping Outlaw (Exodus 18:19)

Moses sat to judge the people, and they came to him from morning to evening. Who counseled him not to do this? His father-in-law, Jethro (Exodus 18:19)

Wanted for murder in Egypt (Exodus 2:11-14), Moses fled to Midian, married the daughter of the local priest, Jethro (Exodus 2:15-22), and settled for forty years (Exodus 2:23; Acts 7:29-30). After Moses returned to Egypt and freed the Israelites from slavery (Exodus 3:1-14:31), Jethro visited Moses in the wilderness (Exodus 18:1-6). After catching up (Exodus 18:7-12), Jethro quickly realized that his son-in-law was the upstart nation’s sole arbiter and that no one ought carry that burden alone (Exodus 18:13-16). The Supreme Court simply cannot handle every case.

Moses needed to know his role and its limitations. Jethro warned Moses that if he did not reduce his workload that he would “wear out” (Exodus 18:18 NASB).

Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you are doing is not good. You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. (Exodus 18:17-18 NASB)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) explains, “The literal meaning of the Hebrew verb is ‘to wither’—an appropriate idiom in an agricultural society for exhaustion from work as ‘burnout’ is in a modern technological society (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 491).”

Jethro did not merely criticize his son-in-law but also offered a practical solution. Jethro’s two-fold strategy kept Moses as the people’s representative before God (Exodus 18:18-22) but delegated smaller matters to subordinates (Exodus 18:22). Moses would still handle the most difficult cases and the buck still stopped with him. As the well known management saying advises, “You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.”

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) explains, “They are to organize themselves in a decentralized structure, having authority at various levels in the community, bringing only the most difficult cases to Moses for decision (see Deuteronomy 1:9-18). The responsibility for justice is thus dispersed throughout the community. (Fretheim, Exodus: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 199).”

Jethro’s solution represented a win-win scenario as deputation not only benefitted Moses, but the Israelites as well (Exodus 18:23). Medical missionaries Tom Hale and Stephen Thorson analyze:

This would allow Moses to concentrate on matters only he could handle, and at the same time it would develop and encourage other leaders within the community of Israel. Too often leaders think they are indispensable, that only they are competent to carry out the duties of leadership; but such an attitude is plainly arrogant. For Moses, Jethro’s advice was wise; it is wise for us as well. A New Testament example of the wisdom of delegation is found in Acts 6:1-6. (Applied Old Testament Commentary: Applying God’s Word to Your Life, 236).

Moses had the strength to let go and followed Jethro’s instructions (Exodus 18:23-27). The passage offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain into the molding of Israel as a nation. John I. Durham (b. 1933) refers to the incident as “the best picture we have in the Old Testament of how the system worked and a clear designation of God as the authority of both the law and its interpretation.” (Durham, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3: Exodus , 253). The story also sets the stage for the giving of the law in the following chapters. Are you in danger of withering? What responsibilities do you need to delegate? What were the benefits of following Jethro’s strategy? Is micromanaging ever appropriate?

In alluding to this passage, some management experts refer to the “Jethro Principle” which in its simplest iteration states that leadership should be shared. Even Moses needed both divine and human helpers. Rabbi David Baron (b. 1950) writes:

The name of Moses usually evokes images of a lone figure towering over his flock, not quite a god but not merely a mortal, either. When we look at examples of how a single human being can be a force for change in the world, we think of him...But neither the image of Moses the towering law giver nor that of Moses the fully actualized man shows us the reality: he was part of a team. Not even Moses could do it alone. (Baron, Moses on Management: 50 Leadership Lessons from the Greatest Manager of All Time, 112-113)

Not surprisingly, one of Moses’ helpers was his father-in-law. Scholars have long speculated as to just how much influence the Midianite priest had on the nascent Israelite nation. In her1939 novelization of the familiar Exodus story, Moses, Man of the Mountain, Zora Neale Hurston (1891-1960) gives many of God’s lines to Jethro, including being the impetus for Moses’s rescue mission in Egypt (Hurston, 120-121).

David Baron (b. 1950) speculates, “Jethro may have played an even more important role in Moses’ development: some scholars believe that he taught Moses monotheism. So great was the respect the ancient sages had for the Midianite priest Jethro that they named the portion of the Bible that contains the Ten Commandments ‘Yitro’ after him (Baron, Moses on Management: 50 Leadership Lessons from the Greatest Manager of All Time, 115).”

For his part, Jethro notes that his system is from God (Exodus 18:23). Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) comments, “The remarkable thing is that the Old Testament itself does not seem to have any problem with the issue. The narrative moves back and forth with apparent ease between advice offered on the level of practical expediency (Exodus 18:17ff) and statements about God’s will which supports the plan (Exodus 18:19, 23). No tension appears between these two poles because both are seen to reflect the divine will to the same extent (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 332).”

How much of an influence do you think Jethro had on Moses? What is the best advice you ever received from your in-laws? Why does the Bible share Jethro’s contribution and the process instead of merely recording the results? When has God spoken to you through the practical voice of another human being?

“Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere as long as the policy you’ve decided upon is being carried out.” - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), Fortune Magazine, September 15, 1986

The House of Mirth (Ecclesiastes 7:4)

Complete: “The heart of the wise is the house of mourning, but _____________________________________________.” The heart of fools is in the house of mirth (Ecclesiastes 7:4)

Ecclesiastes is one of five Biblical books classified as wisdom literature. The book documents the sayings of “the Preacher” (Ecclesiastes 1:1 NASB), often left untranslated as Qohelet. Ecclesiastes 7 addresses a theme common to wisdom literature — the contrast of wisdom and folly. For Qohelet, one of the dividing lines between wisdom and folly is an awareness of one’s finitude.

The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning, While the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure. (Ecclesiastes 7:4 NASB)

Ecclesiastes 7:4 uses antithetical parallelism, a juxtaposition of opposites, to contrast the sage and the fool. Qohelet claims that the mind of the fools resides in the house of “mirth” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “pleasure” (HCSB, NASB, NIV). The traditional translation, “the house of mirth”, was immortalized by Edith Wharton (1862-1937) in her 1905 novel of the same name. The book examines the fashionable New York elite, whose surface achievement and refinement in the house of mirth conceals a moral vacuum that contributes to the death of the book’s protagonist, Lily Bart.

Qohelet says that the wise are always aware of their pending date with death. Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) explains, “In keeping with the previous verses, he states his belief that those who are wise contemplate their ultimate death, while fools are those who blithely live as if there is no end in sight (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 184).”

William H. Bicksler (b. 1933) adds,“The wise are in the house of mourning, the place of death, much like tragedies are so much truer to life than comedies (Bicksler, Commentary on Ecclesiastes: The Believing Skeptic with a Message, 115).”

Craig G. Bartholomew (b. 1961) claims that Qohelet is actually advocating a preoccupation with death:

This does not just refer to healthy awareness of one’s finitude but to an obsession with death. The heart is the center of the person and for Qohelet the “wise” person’s center dwells in the house of mourning. Qohelet’s logic leads him to the view that the wise person is consumed with death and the fool with celebration and joy. (Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 248)

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) posited that a human could not fully process the concept of one’s own death. Freud writes, “It is indeed impossible to imagine our own death; and whenever we attempt to do so we can perceive that we are in fact still present as spectators. Hence the psychoanalytic school could venture on the assertion that at bottom no one believes in his own death, or to put the same thing in another way, in the unconscious every one of us is convinced of his own immortality (Freud, “Thoughts for Our Times on War and Death”, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume 14, 289).” For Freud, on some level, all humans are fools dwelling in the house of mirth. How would you put this verse into modern terms? Does Qohelet suppose that wise people should never venture to the house of pleasure? What are the lessons of the funeral home? What benefit is there to contemplating one’s own death?

The realization of one’s death provides the opportunity for a new awareness of life. James L. Crenshaw (b. 1934) explains that “the thought flows logically from Ecclesiastes 7:1 to Ecclesiastes 7:4. In these ‘better’ sayings Qohelet seems captivated by death’s finality. Since everyone eventually dies, a realist prepares for that moment. In considering that unwelcome event one encounters an astonishing paradox: suffering can instruct, purge the spirit, and offer increased learning. An astute observer of life makes a path for the house of mourning, anticipating an encounter with the essence of human existence.” (Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 134-135).

Iain Provan (b. 1957) adds that there is a moral byproduct to this revelation:

Depth is, in fact, a characteristic of the person who lives in the light of reality, just as superficiality is the mark of the life in denial. The wise person knows the value of things. This is clear from Ecclesiastes 7:5-6, where words having moral content and directed at the important question of how we should live (the “rebuke”) are preferred to the inane, pointless (hebel, NIV “meaninglessness”) , sounds produced by fools, whether in song or in laughter. (Provan, The NIV Application Commentary: Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs)

Commentators have long been befuddled by the stark contrast between this passage and other sayings in Ecclesiastes, most notably the “carpe diem” (“seize the day”) passages (Ecclesiastes 2:24-26, 3:12-14, 22, 5:18-20, 8:15, 9:7-10).

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) writes:

It is important to feel the tension between this verse and the carpe diem passages that appear throughout the book. In the latter, Qohelet asserts that there is ‘nothing better’ than the pleasures of eating, drinking, and working, while here he seems to say that such an attitude is the mark of the fool. These tensions lead to the conclusion...that Qohelet is a confused wise man who doubts the traditions of his people. (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 184).

Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) expound:

The verse seems to say that wherever they are, the wise think about mortality and the limitations of the human condition, while fools seek only personal enjoyment and pleasure. The Targum relates the verse to the destruction of the Temple: the wise mourn and reflection its destruction, while the fools are indifferent and engage in irresponsible behavior...Perhaps Kohelet is recommending that we focus on death in order to appreciate the days we are alive. Such a perspective would be consistent with Ecclesiastes 2:24, from which this teaching would have emerged naturally. Or perhaps, from the perspective of old age, Kohelet has simply changed his mind. If so, then Ecclesiastes 2:24 contradicts this verse, which may be why, in his comment on the previous verse, Ibn Ezra reminds the reader that the Rabbis sought to suppress this book because they felt that its verses (and therefore its teachings) included inherent contradictions. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Kohelet: A Modern Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 65)

Perhaps Qohelet was not confused, was not self contradictory and did not change his mind. Perhaps the proper perspective upon one’s own mortality lies somewhere between living moment to moment, seizing the present day and dwelling on the inevitably of death at an unknown future date.

What is the proper attitude toward one’s own death? Have you faced your own death? Do you dwell in the house or mourning or the house of mirth?

“To suspect your own mortality is to know the beginning of terror, to learn irrefutably that you are mortal is to know the end of terror.” - Frank Herbert (1920-1986), Children of Dune, p. 132

Esau a.k.a “Red” (Genesis 25:30)

What was Esau’s other name? Edom

Isaac’s son, Esau, was a hairy redhead. The Bible tells us that he was born that way (Genesis 25:25). As a fellow hairy redhead, I have always viewed him as the Bible’s most handsome character which is clearly evidenced in this quilt created by Marilyn Belford (b. 1935) entitled “For a Mess of Pottage”...

At birth, Esau was given his name. John C.L. Gibson (1930-2008) informs, “Its real meaning is unknown, though presumably the Hebrews were aware of it. (Gibson, Genesis (Daily Study Bible), 140).”

Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. (Genesis 25:25 NASB)

Based upon context clues, it can be inferred that Esau’s name was in some way associated with his physical appearance but its precise meaning is uncertain. Isaac’s son is the only Bible character with the name.

During the first story told of Esau, the character is endowed with another name when his younger twin, Jacob, convinces him to trade his birthright for a pot of “red stuff” (Genesis 25:27-34). With that Esau became synonymous with Edom, which means “red” (Genesis 25:30, 36:1, 8, 19, 43).

and Esau said to Jacob, “Please let me have a swallow of that red stuff there, for I am famished.” Therefore his name was called Edom. (Genesis 25:30 NASB)

This verse marks the first time the word “red” is used in the Bible but hardly the last. Edom will become the name of the nation of Esau’s descendants. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) notes “that not all Jacob-Esau stories equate Esau with Edom, but that this identification is rooted in ch. 25.” (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 275).”

Though contextually the name does not relate only to his hair, in this story, Esau becomes the first in a long line of redheads who used “Red” as a proper name. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) expounds:

Esau’s name was first explained in Genesis 25:30 — he was called “ruddy” (’admônî) all over, like a “hairy garment”...so they named him “Esau”...Genesis 25:30 expands that explanation...Running through these two verses is an emphasis on redness or some shade thereof...Esau is one of two individuals in the Old Testament whose natural appearance is described as red. Both he and David are called ’admônî (Genesis 25:20; I Samuel 16:12, 17:42) C.H. Gordon had provided evidence from Egypt, Crete, Ugarit, and Homer showing that men (but never women) are colored red or reddish brown when they assumed heroic or ceremonial purposes.” (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 183)

Being redheaded is distinctive. People with other hair colors are not known by their hair hue, only redheads. Anthropologist Grant McCracken (b. 1951) explains, “Of course, part of the ‘problem’ with redheads is that there aren’t enough of them. They make up just two percent of the population. So they’re pretty extraordinary. Redheads are too numerous to be ignored, too rare to be accepted (McCracken, Big Hair: A Journey Into the Transformation of Self, 102).”

Do you have more than one name? If you were a color, what color would you be? How many people named “Red” can you think of? What do you associate with the color red?

It is natural to compare Jacob and Esau. They were the Bible’s first twin brothers and are juxtaposed many times in Scripture (Genesis 25:27, 28, 27:22; Joshua 24:4; Obadiah 1:18; Malachi 1:2; Romans 9:13). The twins’ names also make for an interesting comparison. Both have two names (Jacob/Israel, Esau/Edom), the second of which was given later and the name the nations they spawned adopted (Genesis 25:26, 32:28, 35:10).

Jacob’s names relate to his character and his adopted name, Israel, refers to one of the most profound moments of his life (Genesis 32:24-32). In contrast, Esau’s names refer to his physical appearance and his adopted name refers to one of his greatest failures (Genesis 25:27-34).

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) writes:

The parenthetical aside that connects the name “Edom” (’ědôm) with the “red” (’ādōm) concoction reinforces the link between the progenitor and his offspring. The play on the name is not complimentary, since it brings to mind Esau’s ineptness in dealing with the artful Jacob. It also recalls the birth conflict where he was described there as “red” (Genesis 25:25). By the convergence of the wordplays, the author shows that these events by which Jacob gets the better of Esau proved the veracity of the oracle (Genesis 25:23). (Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 11:27-50:26), 392)

Harvey J. Fields (b. 1935) adds, “Before and after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., the rabbis used the name ‘Edom’ as a code name for Rome. They believed that, one day, Esau-Edom-Rome, would be defeated and that Jacob-Israel would be victorious. They predicted that ‘God will throw Edom-Rome out of heaven...Edom-Rome will be slaughtered...Edom-Rome will be destroyed by fire.’ (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 4:9) (Fields, A Torah Commentary for Our Times: Genesis, 62)”

Would you rather be named for a physical feature or a character trait? Is the text, written by Jacob’s descendants, fair to Esau? If you were named for your greatest triumph or most heart wrenching failure, what would your name be?

“When red headed people are above a certain social grade their hair is auburn.” - Mark Twain (1835-1910), A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, p. 152