What A Pity! (Psalm 103:13 )

Complete: “As a father pities his children, so ___________________________________.” The Lord pities those who fear him. (Psalm 103:13)

Psalm 103 is designated a psalm of David. Though there are no clear internal clues, for linguistic reasons, the consensus is that it is a later psalm. The hymn of praise is known for its personal tone.

Walter D. Zorn (b. 1943) lauds:

Little wonder that of all the psalms, 103 is one of the most loved. Even the person who is reading it for the first time will surely gather that the soul of the author is speaking, and that what he says reveals much about himself. (Zorn, Psalms Volume 2 (The College Press NIV Commentary: Old Testament Series), 255)

The powerful personal testimony is part of a psalm of individual thanksgiving. Geoffrey Grogan (1925-2011) describes:

This is explicitly a psalm of praise in Psalm 103:1-5 and Psalm 103:20-22, but it is implicitly so throughout, as we see from its inclusio form plus its exposition of God’s loving faithfulness to his people. (Grogan, Psalms (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), 172)

John Eaton (b. 1927) communicates the psalm’s structure:

This beautiful psalm takes the form of a hymn, consisting of calls to praise and reasons for praise. But a distinctive feature, imparting a heartfelt warmth, is the casting of the opening lines (Psalm 103:1-5) in the form of exhortation to the singer’s own soul, resumed only in the final phrase (Psalm 103:22b). In the rest of the psalm the expressions are those of the usual congregational hymn. (Eaton, Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation (Continuum Biblical Studies), 358)

David Noel Freedman (1922-2008) and David Miano (b. 1966) add, “Psalm 103 has the earmarks of a standard alphabetic poem. It has 22 lines, corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Its syllable and stress count also conforms to the pattern (Peter W. Flint [b. 1964] and Patrick D. Miller [b. 1935] , “Non-Acrostic Alphabetic Psalms”, The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum), 90).”

The hymn’s core focuses on divine forgiveness, assured to those who “fear the Lord” (Psalm 103:6-18). James Luther Mays (b. 1921) designates:

Three times the psalm says that the steadfast love and compassion of God are for “those who fear him” (Psalm 103:11, 13, 17). “Those who fear the LORD” is a designation used in the psalms along with the righteous, the faithful, and the servants of the LORD for those who seek to make the LORD the decisive orienting center of their lives (e.g., Psalm 25:12, 14, 31:19, 34:9, 85:9)...The fear of the LORD is simply reverence practiced in trust and obedience. (Mays, Psalms (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 329-330)

In describing God’s relationship to humanity, the psalmist invokes a comparison to paternal love (Psalm 103:13).

Just as a father has compassion on his children,
So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him. (Psalm 103:13 NASB)

Though older translations render the Hebrew racham “pities” (ASV, KJV, NKJV, RSV), more recent translations use more complimentary terms: “has compassion on” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), “feel for” (MSG), “are kind to” (CEV). This compassion stems from the paternal relationship between God and humanity. Artur Weiser (1893-1978) explains:

He chooses a simile from the sphere of man’s personal life which Hosea (Hosea 11:1-4) has portrayed in the most beautiful colours, that is, the picture of God’s fatherly love. Just as true fatherly love never deserts the child but guides him with a strong hand and does so even when the child does wrong, and just as his compassion proves itself to be greatest in precisely this latter case, so is God’s love for the man who fears him. (Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 662)

The pity discussed in the psalm is not typically associated with masculine figures. John Goldingay (b. 1942) reasons:

Although showing compassion might seem a distinctively female quality, it being related to the word for “womb,” the psalm presupposes that it is equally natural to a father. Fathers by their nature are motherly in this respect. They can thus provide an image for Yhwh as a motherly father. There is nothing distinctively Israelite about the point; Ugaritic stories characterize the senior Canaanite god El as the compassionate one. Even when confronted by his children’s rebellions, a father shows compassion. Indeed, it is their rebellions that test the reality of his compassion. (Goldingay, Psalms, Volume 3: Psalms 90-150 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 172)

This paternal imagery is rare in the Old Testament. Fisher Humphreys (b. 1939) chronicles:

There are a few other passages in the Old Testament that speak of God’s having a child, and they are about kings of Israel...The Old Testament teaching about children of God is wonderful, but in it the idea that God is Father and that each of God’s people is a child of God is very limited compared with New Testament teaching. (Humphreys, I Have Called You Friends: New Testament Images That Challenge Us to Live as Christ Followers, 161)

As Humphreys alludes, Jesus frequently spoke of God in paternal terms. He instructs:

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9 NASB)

Do you associate compassion or pity with a specific gender? What does it mean to you that God loves you like a father? How can people who have had a bad relationship with their father relate to this verse? Were you to describe your relationship to God with one analogy, what would it be? Is it ever good to be pitied? Do you want God to pity you?

Though people tend to deflect pity, in this case it is a wonderful sentiment. The compassion of God the Father assumes a caring God who is active in the world. Mark Bredin (b. 1963) explains:

In Psalm 103:13-14 God is a compassionate Father who knows how all things were made. This very father is the one who remembers that all are dust [Psalm 103:14]. “Father” suggests that God continues to be present for his whole creation in contrast to the clock maker who stops caring about the clock once it is ticking. (Bredin, The Ecology of the New Testament: Creation, Re-Creation, and the Environment, 87)

Have you accepted the pity of God? Do you extend the same compassion to others?

“A pity beyond all telling
Is hid in the heart of love.”
- William Butler Yeats (1865-1939), “The Pity of Love” (1892)

John Mark’s Exit (Acts 13:13)

Who dropped out of the missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas and went back home? John Mark

Paul typically worked as part of what today might be called a “ministry team”. Aside from an excursion to Athens (Acts 17:16-34), Paul is never seen working alone. On his first “missionary journey”, he is accompanied by Barnabas (Acts 13:2). A man named John, also called Mark, accompanies the duo on the first leg of their travels (Acts 12:12, 25, 13:13, 15:37, 39). Tradition equates John with the Mark referenced in the New Testament epistles (Colossians 4:10; II Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24; I Peter 5:13), a relative of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). He is commonly referred to as John Mark.

John Mark is described as a huperetes (Acts 13:5), a word with a broad definition most commonly translated as “assistant” (ESV, HCSB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “helper” (CEV, MSG, NASB, NIV). Just what role John Mark plays is unclear.

Ajith Fernando (b. 1948) examines:

Some have suggested that the word “helper” here (hyperetes) has a restricted meaning similar to synagogue attendant (cf. Luke 4:20), so that Mark’s responsibility was to care for the scrolls of the Scriptures along with a “sayings of Jesus” collection. But Luke uses this word in the broader sense elsewhere (Luke 1:2; Acts 5:22, 25, 26:16), which seems to be the meaning here. As a resident of Jerusalem Mark may have had an eyewitness knowledge of events in the gospel story, especially relating to the Passion narrative, of which Paul would have availed himself. (Fernando, Acts (The NIV Application Commentary), 375)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) speculates that John Mark was more than a mere gofer:

John Mark...served as a υπηρετης. This term can have a variety of senses but its general sense is of a servant or helper, any subordinate assistant. Probably, in view of the use of the term in Luke 1:2 and Acts 26:16, it means more than just someone who helped with material aid or practical arrangements (though cf. Acts 5:22, 26, 20:34, 24:23). Presumably Mark helped in preaching and teaching in some way, but Luke does not care to be more specific. He is in any case not portrayed as a major figure in this venture. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 395)

While in Perga in Pamphylia, something unusual occurs. Though no missional activity is recorded, the text informs that John Mark leaves the team.

Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. (Acts 13:13 NASB)

John Mark’s desertion is evidence that Christians were free to leave the mission field at any time. Though Paul writes of deserters (I Timothy 1:20), this abandonment is an anomaly in Acts.

John Mark returns home to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13), presumably to the home of his pious mother, Mary (Acts 12:12). Though Acts offers no rationale for John Mark’s exit many have hazarded guesses. Some have examined the verbs for clues.

C. Clifton Black (b. 1955) analyzes:

In both classical and Hellenistic Greek, the verb ἀποχωρειν means generally “to go away from” or “to depart,” though it can carry the connotation of retirement or withdrawal after a defeat (such as an army might do in battle: Thucydides [460-395 BCE}, Peloponnesian War 2.89). Beyond Acts 13:13 this verb appears only twice in the New Testament. At Luke 9:39, with reference to a demonic spirit, it may, though need not, carry this nuance of capitulation (and probably does not do so in Matthew 7:23). The other verb in Acts 13:13b, ὑποστρέφειν, may simply be translated as “to return,” its most common connotation in Luke-Acts (see, e.g., Luke 1:56; Acts 1:12), or it can convey the more negative nuance of retreat under fire. (Richard P. Thompson [b. 1958] and Thomas E. Phillips, “John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles”, Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson [b. 1928], 108-109)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds:

The two verbs used by Luke suggest something more than a simple return home: apochōreō can be used in the sense of “removing oneself from” someone’s opinions (Epictetus [55-135], Discourse 4, 1, 53); the use in LXX Jeremiah 46:5 implies a turning back in fear or cowardice, and in III Maccabees 2:33, it means something like apostasy. It is striking that Luke will use another form of the verb (apochōrizomai) for the later separation of Barnabas and Paul. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 229)

Many reasons have been suggested for John Mark’s departure. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) recounts the usual suspects:

Did he resent the fact that Paul was now the leader, while his cousin Barnabas was relegated to second place? Or did he not want to go further than Cyrprus? Or did he lose courage? Or was there some other reason? We simply are not told, but it is clear from Acts 15:38 that Paul regarded his defection as a serious matter, while Barnabas was prepared to make allowances for him. (Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 222)

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) narrows the list, writing, “Acts 15:37-39 makes it clear that a genuine falling out occurred on the team. This would seem to eliminate speculation that illness or fear of danger alone created the problem (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary ), 214).”

The timing of the incident fits a dissatisfaction with a shift in leadership. The verse that recounts John Mark’s withdrawal also marks the first time the text describes Paul as the leader of the operation - “Paul and his companions” (Acts 13:13).

F.F. Bruce: (1910-1990) notes:

When the expedition sets out from Syria, Luke speaks of “Barnabas and Saul”; by the time they leave Cyrpus, it is “Paul and his company.” It is unlikely that this change of expression is due purely to a change of source. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 251)

Most think the issue runs deeper than petty jealousy. William H. Willimon (b. 1946) suggests that the personal row masks a deeper issue:

The reason that Luke gives for the breakup of the Paul and Barnabas team does not square with Paul’s version in Galatians 2:11-13. Paul’s own assertion that he had doctrinal differences with Barnabas does not fit into Luke’s purposes, so he transformed a theological dispute between Barnabas and Paul into a personal quarrel concerning the quitter, John Mark, who had withdrawn during the first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). (Willimon, Acts: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 133)

Richard N. Longenecker (b. 1930) theorizes that the theological issue at stake is Paul’s mission to the Gentiles:

Mark may have been concerned about the effect news of a direct Christian mission to Gentiles would have in Jerusalem and on the church there and may have wanted no part in it. It was his return to the Christian community in Jerusalem that may originally have stirred the “Judaizers” in the church to action. (Longenecker, Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 217)

R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) dissects:

The hypothesis that he was not willing to participate in Paul’s mission to the Gentiles has much to commend it: (1) Mark made his decision soon after their encounter with the gentile proconsul. (2) Luke uses Mark’s Hebrew name, John in Acts 13:13. (3) John Mark returned not to Antioch, but to Jerusalem...(4) In Acts 15:38 Paul refuses to take Mark along because he had not “...gone with them to the work.” The occurrence of to ergon in Acts 13:2...and in Acts 14:26...clearly indicate that “the work” in which Mark refused to participate was the mission to the Gentiles. (5) That the gentile question was the issue is further suggested by the observation that Paul reports in Galatians 2:13 that even Barnabas was carried into hypocrisy over the question of the table-fellowship with Gentiles...The convergence of these considerations strongly suggests that John Mark withdrew from the mission because he could not in good conscience participate in the offering of the Gospel to the Gentiles. After the Jerusalem conference he apparently changed his mind (Acts 15:37-38). (Culpepper, “Paul’s mission to the Gentile World: Acts 13-19,” Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 488)

Furthermore, John Mark was not only associated with Jerusalem in general but with Peter in particular as Peter stays at his home (Acts 12:12) and John Mark is even called his “son” in the Petrine epistles (I Peter 5:13). John Mark might have been the first person to feel he was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The early missionaries certainly did not have an easy task and any or all of these reasons could have contributed to John Mark’s early exit. Though the reason for John Mark’s departure must remain conjecture, it is certain that Paul is extremely displeased with the young man’s lack of commitment. In Paul’s view, he is fighting a war and John Mark is a deserter. Paul might have even perceived the slight as inexcusable as he refuses to allow John Mark to rejoin the team and even splits with Barnabas over the issue (Acts 15:37-38).

Have you ever quit anything? Why did you? Why do you think John Mark returns home? Do you think that any rationale would have been justifiable in Paul’s eyes? Was John Mark not supposed to be on this journey?

Paul may not be merely holding a grudge against his former ministry partner. John C. Maxwell (b. 1947) rationalizes:

Everywhere he [Paul] went, he took companions. He considered the time he spent with them an investment. And if he didn’t see a return, for example, in the case of John Mark who didn’t accompany him to Antioch (Acts 13:13), Paul was reluctant to keep investing in him (Acts 15:37-40). (Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes in a Leader’s Day: Revitalize Your Spirit and Empower Your Leadership, 348)

Though we do not know the specifics, John Mark is redeemed. Tradition asserts that he is the author of the Gospel of Mark. Given his presence in later Pauline epistles, it can also be assumed that John Mark and Paul eventually patch up their relationship. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) affirms, “Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; II Timothy 4:11...give a good hint of later reconciliation (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 200).”

Guy Greenfield (1931-2007) relates Paul’s reaction to parental disappointment, including (in these terms) a predictable reconciliation:

Paul...expressed his sense of disappointment, even resentment, over Mark’s cowardly behavior (Acts 15:36-41), so much so that Paul and Barnabas chose to go their separate ways on the next journey. Years later, Paul and Mark reconciled their differences, and Paul, in his last letter, instructed Timothy to “get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me” (II Timothy 4:11; cf. Colossians 4:10). (Greenfeld, The Wounded Parent: Hope for Discouraged Parents, 102)

Has anyone ever lost confidence in you? With whom do you need to be reconciled? Who has given you a second chance? To whom do you need to extend an opportunity for redemption?

“You mustn’t confuse single failure with a final defeat.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940), Tender is the Night, p. 157

What the Doctor Ordered (Proverbs 17:22)

Complete: “A cheerful heart is a good ________.” Medicine (Proverbs 17:22)

Proverbs asserts that one’s attitude has an effect on their physical well-being.

A joyful heart is good medicine, But a broken spirit dries up the bones. (Proverbs 17:22 NASB)

A joyful heart is said to be good gehah. This term is used only here in the Old Testament. Most translations render the word “medicine” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) translates the word “body” but admits, “The meaning of this noun (used only here) is uncertain. Other possibilities are “face” and “health.” (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible), 635).”

Kathleen A. Farmer (b. 1943) identifies the connection between disposition and health as a major theme of the book of Proverbs, summarizing, “Others observe and comment upon the relationship between happiness and health: “A cheerful heart is a good medicine, but a downcast spirit dries up the bones” (Proverbs 17:22). (Farmer, Who Knows What is Good?: A Commentary on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (International Theological Commentary), 99).”

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) determines:

The purpose of these observations [Proverbs 17:22, 18:14] is both to help the sages understand themselves and other people as well as to encourage them toward attitudes and behaviors that would make them feel better. According to Proverbs 3:7-8, it is especially fear of Yahweh that will lead to good health. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 559)

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) sees a connection between this proverb and its predecessor (Proverbs 17:21), concluding:

The verse asserts the psychosomatic effects of Proverbs 17:21 (cf. Proverbs 14:30, 15:13, 30, 16:24, 18:14). Besides this notional connection, the proverbial pair is also lexically connected chiastically in its inner core by the catchword “rejoice”/“joyful” (śmh, Proverbs 17:21b, 22a) and its outer frame by the co-referential terms “grief” and “broken spirit” (Proverbs 17:21a, 22b). Grief and joy are matters of death and life. Whereas Proverbs 17:21 connected heart and tongue, this one connects heart and spirit (see Proverbs 15:13; cf. Proverbs 12:25, 13:12, 14:30). On its own the proverb admonishes the disciple to live in such a way that he experiences joy that revives and not depression that kills. (Waltke, Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (NICOT), 60)

Kenneth T. Aitken (b. 1947) differentiates:

Israel’s sages might not have used the term ‘psychosomatic’, but the idea was familiar enough to them. The contrast drawn here is not between the joy and sorrow which we all feel at certain times, but between set dispositions towards life. The person with a “glad heart” is that remarkably cheerful individual who has a positive and optimistic outlook on life, who always seem to find something to be happy about, and whose smile is infectious. Such a disposition pays dividends in a healthy body and a healthy complexion (cf. Proverbs 3:8, 14:30). At the other extreme, the person with a “sorrowful heart” is that morose or anxiety-laden individual who is always down in the dumps, who always finds something to complain or fret about, and who dampens the atmosphere around him like the proverbial wet blanket. This disposition pays its dividend in bad health. It debilitates the body, clouds the eyes and leaves its etchings on the face. (Aitken, Proverbs (Daily Study Bible Series), 240-241)

Modern psychologists would reject the term “psychosomatic” in favor of “psychophysiological” but the effect is the same: a positive outlook on life directly effects a person’s physical well-being.

While a cheerful disposition certainly cannot hurt one’s health, do you believe that one’s attitude effects their body? Have you ever felt that someone’s cheerful disposition helped them recover from an illness? Who do you know that fits the description “cheerful heart”? Do you have such a disposition?

Modern psychology has shown that health and emotions are linked. The proverb is seen as a precursor to the field of health psychology. In their introductory textbook on the subject, Howard S. Friedman (b. 1950) and Roxane Cohen Silver (b. 1966) acknowledge:

Health psychology, the most modern major domain of psychology, flows from ancient intellectual wellsprings. From the biblical proverb which taught that “A merry heart does good like medicine” (Proverbs 17:22) to the definitional “heart-ache” of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (act 3, scene 1), the psyche and the soma have long been sensed to be linked. (Friedman and Silver, Foundations of Health Psychology, 3)

Rod A. Martin (b. 1951) adds:

Since the time of Aristotle, a number of physicians and philosophers have suggested that laughter has important health benefits, such as improving blood circulation, aiding digestion, restoring energy, counteracting depression, and enhancing the functioning of various organs of the body...This idea has become increasingly popular in recent years, as modern medical discoveries like endorphins, cytokines, natural killer cells, and immunoglobulins have been added to the list of bodily substances that are thought to beneficially affected by humor and laughter. (Martin, The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach, 309)

Interest in the connection between disposition and physical health was rekindled when Norman Cousins (1915-1990) chronicled his battle with a serious collagen illness in his 1980 autobiographical memoir, Human Options: An Autobiographical Notebook. Cousins intentionally combated his illness by taking massive doses of Vitamin C and by training himself to laugh. Since Cousins published his personal findings, research has validated the relationship between attitude and health.

This leaves the striking question of how one obtains a cheerful heart. Joyce Meyer (b. 1943) suggests:

One way we can keep a merry heart is by listening to music. When we listen to it, we tend to find ourselves humming or singing along, even when we are not aware of it. When we have a merry heart, we can have joy in our heart even while going about our work...We can also have more energy and vitality because the Bible tells us that the joy of the Lord is our strength...We have a choice. We can grumble our way through our troubles, or we can sing our way through our troubles. Either way, we have to go through troubles, so we may as well go through them happily...I believe that we can understand from Proverbs 17:22...that if we were happier, we would probably be healthier. (Meyer, A Leader in the Making: Essentials to Being a Leader After God’s Own Heart)

How would you go about acquiring a cheerful disposition? What does joy produce in your body and your life?

“Mirth is God’s medicine. Everybody ought to bathe in it.” - Henry Ward Beecher (1883-1887), Royal Truths, p. 241

The Helmet of Salvation (Ephesians 6:17)

Which famous set of clothing contains the helmet of salvation? The whole armor of God

The Epistle to the Ephesians’ last teaching section (before the closing greetings) invokes military imagery. The believer is advised to don the whole armor of God, an analogy by which tenets of Christianity correspond to pieces of armor (Ephesians 6:11-17). Six elements of the well-armed soldier are listed. The fifth item mentioned is the helmet of salvation (Ephesians 6:17).

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:17 NASB)

Helmets were not merely a defensive armament but rather a necessity, literally a matter of life and death to the soldier. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) relays, “These were the last two items to be put on before battle. God’s own helmet and sword have been offered to the saints. The saints are now to receive them (Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 166).”

Matthew N.O. Sadiku (b. 1955) adds, “A soldier puts on the helmet only when he faces impending danger. (Sadiku, Ephesians: A Pentecostal Commentary, 143).”

Helmet (perikephalaia) is used only twice in the New Testament, here and in I Thessalonians 5:8. In both instances it is connected to salvation. CWO-4 Ray R. Fairman (b. 1945) quips:

Helmets really shouldn’t need much explanation, should they? It matters not if it is a soldier’s helmet, a motorcyclist’s, a bicyclist’s, a hockey player’s, or a pilot’s, you know what a helmet is designed to do. Its purpose is to protect your head and everything it contains! (Fairman, Ephesians: God’s Battle Plan for Spiritual Warfare: A Combat Veteran’s View, 136)

Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) notes, “The helmet used by the Roman soldier was made of bronze and had cheek pieces so as to give protection to the head (O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 480-481).”

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) adds, “Helmets were made of leather and brass, or sometimes bronze and iron—no sword could pierce a good helmet (Barton, Ephesians (Life Application Bible Commentary), 134).”

Harold W. Hoehner (1935-2009) expounds:

The word περικφαλια means “head covering” but in military context it refers to the “helmet”. The word occurs ten times in the LXX (nine times in the canonical books) and it is always used of a helmet (e.g. I Samuel 17:5, 38; II Chronicles 26:14; Ezekiel 27:10, 38:4-5). In the New Testament it is used only twice (Ephesians 6:17; I Thessalonians 5:8) and continues to have the military sense. Twice in the LXX the metal of the helmet is depicted as bronze (I Samuel 17:38; I Maccabees 6:35). In Roman times it had various shapes at different times and places, but it generally was made of bronze fitted over an iron skull cap lined with leather or cloth. During Claudius’ reign (A.D. 37-41) the helmet was revised so that it covered the back of the neck, fitting slightly over the shoulder, a brow-ridge fitted above the face to protect the nose and eyes, and hinged cheek pieces were fastened by a chin-band to protect the face. (Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, 850)

The connection between a helmet and salvation originated with Isaiah 59:17. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) informs:

The “helmet of salvation” is taken from Isaiah 59:17, where Yahweh wears it. In such a context it might well be the helmet of victory...for the God of Israel does not receive salvation; he bestows it. Here too “the helmet of salvation” recommended to the believer might be called the helmet of victory, for God’s victory is his people’s salvation...In this letter...salvation is viewed as already accomplished — “it is by grace that you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:5)—so “the helmet of salvation” is available for the protection of believers. (Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 409)

Ernest Best (1917-2004) compares:

In Isaiah 59:17 God as victorious warrior wears the helmet of salvation; now he gives it to believers for their protection...Previously he had used a sequence of participles to itemise the equipment; now he introduces a new finite verb, receive. The soldier, already partially equipped, receives from his armour bearer his helmet and sword; the Christian receives from his God salvation and the word of God; this is not to suggest he collected the other items of equipment for himself; all his military hardware comes from God. (Best, Ephesians: A Shorter Commentary, 324)

As noted, in the whole armor of God, the helmet is connected with salvation. John Muddiman (b. 1947) speculates:

The last two images, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit...may refer to the final goal of the Christian life...While the separate elements in this allegory may be arbitrary (faith could just as well be the belt or the breastplate as the shield, for example),yet as a set in this particular sequence, the correspondences are not arbitrary. (Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 286)

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002) connects:

The helmet is immediately interpreted metaphorically as ‘salvation’ or ‘deliverance’, in connection with Isaiah 59:17...As the breastplate covers the chest, so the helmet surrounds the head...God himself is salvation and deliverance for all those under attack (cf. Psalms 3:3ff, 18:3, 46, 35:3, 37:39ff, 65:5 et al.; Isaiah 33:3; Jeremiah 3:23). In I Thessalonians 5:8 the helmet is interpreted as the hope of salvation, in the context of a decidedly eschatological perspective. In this the author of Ephesians diverges from Paul; for him it is a matter of God’s protection and deliverance in the present battle against evil. (Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary, 279)

Ernest Best (1917-2004) adds:

The helmet is depicted as salvation; salvation is rare in the New Testament appearing only in Luke 2:30, 3:6; Acts 28:28, all passages heavily dependent on the Old Testament, it is found more frequently in the LXX, and is used in Isaiah 59:17. However, when Paul used Isaiah 59:17 in I Thessalonians 5:8 he substituted for it another noun, the normal New Testament noun for salvation; the author of Ephesians’ retention of the LXX word confirms his dependence here on Isaiah 59:17. Paul had also varied the LXX in another way by speaking of the helmet as the hope of salvation, thus imparting an eschatalogical flavour. The author of Ephesians’ stress here on the present nature of salvation is in line with his normal understanding of it. (Best, Ephesians: A Shorter Commentary, 324)

The verb’s middle voice attests that believers are responsible for taking the helmet and sword. The Christian does not automatically inherit these items as evidenced by the fact that Ephesians is addressed to Christians who were already saved but still needed the instruction to put on the helmet (Ephesians 6:11).

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) explains:

The believer is equipped for the spiritual battle by being given the very armor of God himself. It is interesting how some of the verbs refer to something simply given to the believer (the helmet, the sword) and some refer to the action that the believer himself must take once these gifts are in place — standing, praying, resisting, speaking, and the like. Salvation and faith are gifts, but they are gifts that do not work automatically. They are gifts that must be embraced, used, and expressed. (Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, 360)

Have you ever worn a helmet? Have you donned the helmet of salvation? Do you see yourself as being at war? Why is the helmet connected with salvation? What is the purpose of the helmet of salvation?

The helmet of salvation, like any other helmet, protects the head’s contents. Greg Laurie (b. 1952) writes:

As believers, we need to put on the “helmet of salvation” because our minds, our thoughts, and our imaginations must be protected. It’s here that most temptations start. Satan recognizes the value of first getting a foothold in the realm of the thoughts and imaginations, because this will prepare the way for those thoughts to translate into action. As the saying goes, “Sow a thought; reap an act. Sow an act; reap a habit. Sow a habit; reap a character. Sow a character; reap a destiny.” It starts with a thought. (Laurie, Because..., 56)

Derek Prince (1915-2003) adds:

Just as the breastplate protects our hearts, so the helmet protects our minds—our thought lives. The mind is the area in which Christians are most regularly attacked. Inside our minds there is often a continuing war. Satan seeks to insinuate thoughts that will disturb us or distract us or in some other way make us ineffective in our war against him. (Prince, Rules of Engagement: Preparing for Your Role in the Spiritual Battle, 160)

Witness Lee (1905-1997) summarizes, “Satan injects into our minds threats, worries, anxieties, and other weakening thoughts. God’s salvation is the covering we take up against all these (Lee, The Conclusion of the New Testament: Messages 50-62, 584).”

Would you add any items to the whole armor of God? Are you protecting your thoughts?

“After victory, tighten your helmet chord.” - Japanese Proverb

Psalm 100, Worship 101

Complete: “Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into His presence ____________!” With singing

Situated in Book IV of the Psalter, Psalm 100 is one of the Bible’s most beloved hymns. The short composition is comprised of only five verses (Psalm 100:1-5). The psalm offers both an invitation (Psalm 100:1) and a reason to worship: God is worthy (Psalm 100:5).

The hymn, tailor made for a call to worship, is still in use. The standard hymn tune “Old 100th” is associated with this psalm due to a famous paraphrase by William Kethe (d. 1594) entitled “All People that on Earth do Dwell”. J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (b. 1951) calls this metrical version “the banner hymn of the Reformed tradition” (McCann, New Interpreter’s Bible: 1 & 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms (Volume 4), 1079).

Beth LaNeel Tanner (b. 1959) lauds:

Psalm 100 is the best known psalm in the Christian church, especially in the form with words by Thomas Ken in the Doxology. While beautiful in its own way, the words of the song do not have the same powerful imagery of movement and praise as the psalm. (Tanner, The Psalms for Today, 83)

Psalm 100 is the first of a series of four psalms with a superscription and the only psalm whose heading identifies it with the word “thanksgiving”. It famously begins by echoing Psalm 98:4’s universal summons to all the earth.

Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth. (Psalm 100:1 NASB)

Unlike many psalms, there is no shift in mood. The hymn opens in jubilation and maintains its exultant tone throughout.

The short poem has two movements, featuring two calls to worship (Psalm 100:1-2, 4). John Eaton (b. 1927) explains:

As regards structure, the pattern is the same as that of Psalm 95:1-7: call to praise (Psalm 100:1-2) and reason (Psalm 100:3); further call to praise (Psalm 100:4) and reason (Psalm 100:5)...Our psalm will thus have belonged to the same context in the autumn festival as its immediate predecessors. (Eaton, Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation (Continuum Biblical Studies), 349)

Herbert W. Bateman IV (b. 1955) and D. Brent Sandy (b. 1947) concur:

The psalmist begins with a call to universal praise (Psalm 100:1-2), reasoning that God’s power alone has created the covenant community (Psalm 100:3). Second, he calls his readers to praise again (Psalm 100:4), reasoning that God’s covenant faithfulness is unending (Psalm 100:5). (Bateman and Sandy, Interpreting the Psalms for Teaching & Preaching, 41)

Many have speculated that the song was originally used in a temple procession with some theorizing that the two calls to worship corresponded to two movements in the march. Samuel L. Terrien (1911-2002) posits:

The singing of praise and thanksgiving is to be intoned in the presence of the Lord, after the portals of the temple are opened. Presumably, the congregation is still marching up toward the sacred hill. (Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 690)

Though short, the song is replete with instruction concerning the nature of worship. James Luther Mays (b. 1921) informs:

Psalm 100 is an introductory hymn in two ways, liturgical and theological. Its liturgical subject is the movement into the presence of God, the first and fundamental human act that constitutes worship. Its theological purpose is to incorporate into a hymn to accompany that movement that the first and fundamental characteristics of the worship of the LORD. Psalm 100 initiates worship and sets forth a theology of worship. (Mays, Psalms (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 317)

Beth LaNeel Tanner (b. 1959) consents:

The psalm is dominated by the seven imperative verbs that call the congregation to shout, serve, come before, know, enter, give thanks, and bless. There are movement and voice and expression and learning, demonstrating how one can praise God will all one’s might. (Tanner, The Psalms for Today, 83-84)

Psalm 100:2 instructs its audience to gladly serve/worship and to come into God’s presence in song.

Serve the LORD with gladness;
Come before Him with joyful singing. (Psalm 100:2 NASB)

The use of the Hebrew ‘abad is instructive. The word is translated as either “serve” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, RSV) or “worship” (CEV, NIV, NLT, NRSV). It occurs only twice in the Psalter and it is fitting that it is embedded here, immediately following Psalms 93-99, a unit which proclaims God’s kingship.

J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (b. 1951) explains:

Because both “worship” and “serve” are appropriate translations of the Hebrew that begins Psalm 100:2, it is fitting that many Protestants ordinarily designate an occasion for worship as a “worship service.” Strictly speaking, the phrase may be redundant; but it has the advantage of communicating the reality that worship is essentially a public profession of submission to God and God’s purposes for our lives and the life of the world. (Carol M. Bechtel [b. 1959], Touching the Altar: The Old Testament for Christian Worship (Calvin Institute of Christian Worship Liturgical Studies), 166)

John Goldingay (b. 1942) concurs:

In English, talk about church services is a dead metaphor, and that is partly so when the Old Testament uses ‘ābad...Yet the verb does point to the fact that worshiping Yhwh involves a serious submission of the whole self. It involves the words of the mouth (Psalm 100:1a) and the feelings of the heart (“with joy”; it is a strange kind of servitude that is offered with joy). But it is not confined to words and feelings. The verb implies that worship is done for God’s sake and not for ours; servants serve their master; not themselves. And the fact that serving God mostly takes place outside worship also hints that there needs to be some coherence between what happens in worship and what happens outside. (Goldingay, Psalms (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 135)

Richard J. Foster (b. 1942) concludes, “As worship begins in holy expectancy, it ends in holy obedience. If worship does not propel us into greater obedience, it has not been worship (Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth, 173).”

The song next advocates entering God’s presence with singing. The Message paraphrases Psalm 100:2b, “Sing yourselves into his presence”. Worship leader Bob Kauflin (b. 1955) affirms, “The psalmists model numerous ways we can express our affections toward God to magnify his greatness, all of which can be reflected in our songs (Kauflin, Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God, 65).”

Robert Alter (b. 1935) specifies, “The Hebrew preposition...has the sense of “His presence.” The spatial reference is to the temple, where God’s presence is conceived to dwell, an idea that will be developed in Psalm 100:4 (Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary, 348).”

Walter D. Zorn (b. 1943) adds:

This is the first use of the word for “come” (Psalm 100:2b) or “enter (Psalm 100:4a) – same word in Hebrew...The language is taken from how people were given an audience with human kings (cf. I Samuel 10:24; II Samuel 14:3, 15, 15:2; Esther 4:11-16, 8:1). (Zorn, Psalms Volume 2 (The College Press NIV Commentary: Old Testament Series), 237)

We are too approach God with at least the same reverence one would a human authority figure.

How do you approach God? Do you enter God’s presence with singing? Does your Sunday worship extend throughout the week? How should worship begin? What role does music play in worship? Is it a necessary component? With what attitude do you worship?

Artur Weiser (1893-1978) reminds:

The call to worship...in Psalm 100:2 is addressed to the congregation assembled in the Temple. It expresses the motive and the aim and at the same time the spirit of the ‘service’ rendered to God in worship, that is, enthusiastic joy in the presence of God. The note of a joy that is utterly devoted to God and leaves behind it every earthly sorrow that may burn the heart is not only reflected in the opening verses but resounds through the whole psalm. (Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 646)

Hans-Joachim Kraus (1918-2000) adds:

The worship of God at the festival began with the call, “Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!” (Psalm 100:2). Thus worship in Israel was characterized by joy. To serve God means in cultic terms to come before his face, to praise him, laud him, and honor him. (Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (Continental Commentaries), 91)

Rick Warren (b. 1954) advises:

Because God wants our worship to be a celebration, we cultivate an atmosphere of gladness and joy. Too many church services resemble a funeral more than a festival...Worship is a delight, not a duty. (Warren, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission, 271)

What can you glean about worship from Psalm 100? Do you worship God joyfully? Do you joyfully serve the Lord?

“The most valuable thing the Psalms do for me is to express the same delight in God which made David dance.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), Reflections on the Psalms, p. 45

Wear Shoes, No Service (Exodus 3)

Where did Moses take off his shoes? At the burning bush (Exodus 3:1, 5)

As the leader of the exodus, Moses plays a significant role in the Bible but before leading the Israelite people, he leads Midianite sheep (which may have been as good a precursor as any). Moses is exiled in Midian where he marries the daughter of the local priest (Exodus 2:15-22). While tending his father-in-law’s flock on Mount Horeb, the extraordinary breaks into the ordinary when God famously appears to Moses in the form of a burning bush that is not consumed by the flames (Exodus 3:1-2). This is known as a theophany, a visible manifestation of God. Some have quipped that the burning bush is also the first road sign.

God immediately sets the tone of the encounter by issuing two commands: come no closer and remove your footwear (Exodus 3:5).

Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” (Exodus 3:5 NASB)

Moses is naturally terrified (Exodus 3:6). In the midst of this alarming scene, Moses’ choice of footwear was likely the furthest thing from his mind and the text makes no mention of whether or not he regains the composure to comply but the presumption is that he did so. Promptly.

Marc Vervenne (b. 1949) observes:

Moses is allowed and even called upon to stand on holy ground, but he is not to approach any more. Exactly the same situation is presented by the tale of the Sinai revelation: Israel is called upon to stand on the outskirts of the holy precinct on a given moment, but may not ascend the mountain any more [Exodus 19:12-13]. Like Moses before they are standing on the border of the holy. The veil has been lifted but not removed. (Vervenne, Studies in the Book of Exodus, 135)

The encounter transforms Moses’ life. Max Lucado (b. 1955) remarks:

With these...words Moses in enrolled in a class on God. Immediately the roles are defined. God is holy. Approaching him on even a quarter-inch of leather is too pompous...no time is spent convincing Moses what Moses can do, but much time is spent explaining to Moses what God can do. (Lucado, The Great House of God, 27)

At the burning bush, God calls Moses to lead the exodus and the tale’s dramatic features and historic impact make it one of the Bible’s most famous stories. Stephen J. Binz (b. 1955) lauds, “The mission of Moses is the prototype of the many other calls that will follow in the history of salvation. Of all the vocation narratives in the Bible, this is the longest and most memorable (Binz, The God of Freedom and Life: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 20).”

The directive to remove his shoes was a significant enough detail to be incorporated into Stephen’s retelling of the history of Israel in Acts (Acts 7:33). Peter Enns (b. 1961) writes, “Why...must he remove his sandals? This is a sign of reverence common in the ancient Near East, a practice that continues to this day. Joshua is commanded to do the same in Joshua 5:15 (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 98).”

As Enns alludes, removing one’s shoes is still a sign of reverence in parts of the world. In deference to this passage, certain Hasidic groups remove their shoes before approaching the grave site of a holy person. The practice clearly has ancient roots. J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) explains:

On entering one’s tent or someone else’s, one removed one’s sandals to walk cleanly on the rug spread on the ground. A host’s invitation to remove one’s sandals (especially the offer to remove them and wash the feet, as in Genesis 18:4 and John 13:1-17) was an offer of hospitality—an offer of one’s home as the visitor’s home away from home. One accepted such hospitality by respecting the sanctity of the host’s space and moving about in it courteously. If the God of the ancestors, whom contemporary scholars characterize as a family or clan God, could receive such hospitality at Abraham’s hands (Genesis 18:1-8), it should not be surprising to find the same imagery used here, where Moses finds himself in the presence of that same God (Exodus 3:6)...Moses finds himself in a presence that is unfathomably sacred, a presence that invites him to be at home at the same time that it claims his profound respect. He who has felt himself “an alien residing in a foreign land” (Exodus 2:22) now finds himself a guest of God. (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 28-29)

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) expounds:

There are many references in the Bible to taking off or putting on sandals, but none has any connection with holiness except this one. Presumably, taking off shoes was done when entering the presence of a superior person which usually would occur formally when one was at the superior person’s house, palace, or tent. Thus Sinai/Horeb is here implicitly identified as “Yahweh’s place.” Thus the very ground is holy—something said of no other location in the Bible. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary), 114-115)

Carol Meyers (b. 1942) adds:

The descriptions of priestly attire in the tabernacle passages do not mention priestly footwear [Exodus 28:1-43, 39:1-31; Leviticus 8:5-9); presumably priests went barefoot as they traversed the sacred precincts of Israel’s god. A similar removal of shoes as a sign of respect in the domain of the deity is found in the custom of Muslims taking off their footwear as they enter a mosque; and to this very day, members of priestly families traditionally remove their shoes when they recite certain blessings in the synagogue. (Meyers, Exodus (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 53)

While shoes certainly serve a practical purpose, Moshe Chagiz (1671-1750) posited that there might also be a spiritual dimension to God’s request. Nosson Scherman (b. 1935) documents:

Moshe Chagiz offer a deeper reason for wearing shoes. Man does not want to touch the ground directly because the ground was cursed as a result of Adam’s sin [Genesis 3:17]...Thus, man took to wearing shoes...Shoes are only worn on accursed ground; on holy ground, one goes barefoot, making contact with the ground. (Scherman, Yom Kippur, 77)

Some still find spiritual value in making a barefoot pilgrimage. Barbara Brown Taylor (b. 1951) challenges:

Take off your shoes and feel the earth under your feet, as if the ground on which you are standing really is holy ground. Let it please you. Let it hurt you a little. Feel how the world really feels when you do not strap little tanks on your feet to shield you from the way things really are. (Taylor, An Altar in the World: A Geography of Faith, 67)

What do you do to indicate respect? When do you take your shoes off? How do you think the sheep responded to the burning bush? Had Moses been hiking barefoot, what would God have commanded him to do? What made the ground holy?

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) clarifies:

This ground is now holy because of God’s appearance, not because it was already holy. There is no holiness inherent in the place as such, no natural sanctity, but that which is not holy now becomes so by virtue of the divine purpose for the place (not just the divine presence). That which is an ordinary part of the natural order is sanctified, set apart for special use by God. This setting apart was not only for this occasion but also for the future. God’s appearance to Moses establishes Sinai/Horeb as a sacred place (cf. Exodus 3:12; Genesis 28:16-17). God draws a particular plot of ground, an aspect of the creative order, into a new sphere of relationship. (Fretheim, Exodus: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 56-57)

As evidenced by Moses’ wilderness encounter with God while completing a mundane task, God’s holy ground is not limited to the walls of a church or to any single place. Meyers records:

At this point, the notion of sacred space becomes an explicit part of the narrative for the first time in the Hebrew Bible. The word for “place,” māqôm, is often a technical term in biblical Hebrew for a sanctuary or holy place (cf. Genesis 28:11, 19); and “holy ground” likewise connotes sacred space. (Meyers, 53)

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) adds:

The theme of the divine Presence is a major topic of Exodus. It often is emphasized by commands requiring distance from God so as not to intrude too far on his holiness, proximity to which carries with it danger to the person not properly prepared (sanctified). This passage, with its come-no-further command, is remarkably parallel to that of Exodus 19:9-25, where a series of conditions of sanctification (procedures that confer holiness) and distance...are imposed upon the Israelites. Thus what God’s people would eventually have to learn from God through him, Moses now began to learn from God. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary), 114)

Not even Moses was exempt from recognizing God’s holiness. This is the first time that the Hebrew noun for “holy” (qodesh) is used in Scripture. Donald E. Gowan (b. 1929) explains:

“Holiness” has been identified as the quality of divinity itself, as the term is used in scripture, and so it seems that Exodus begins talking about God where we ought to begin. (Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary, 26)

How do you acknowledge God’s holiness? Have you known any preachers who assumed the pulpit barefooted in deference to this passage? Is there any place that should be considered holy ground today?

“Moses at the burning bush was told to take off his shoes because the ground on which he stood was holy ground (Exodus 3:5), and incarnation means that all ground is holy ground because God not only made it but walked on it, ate and slept and worked and died on it. If we are saved anywhere, we are saved here. And what is saved is not some diaphanous distillation of our bodies and our earth, but our bodies and our earth themselves. “ - Frederick Buechner (b. 1926), Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC, p. 52

The Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12)

In I Corinthians 12, what analogy is used by Paul to explain how members of the church should work together? The body

In writing to a divided Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:11), Paul stresses unity. The apostle assures the Corinthians that they have all been endowed with spiritual gifts and that though they do not exhibit the same gifts, this was not grounds for division (I Corinthians 12:1-11). He then makes the natural progression from spirit(ual gifts) to body (I Corinthians 12:12-27). In doing so, he equates living out Christianity to functioning as the body of Christ.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. (I Corinthians 12:12 NASB)

The analogy of the body was not uncommon in antiquity though Paul was likely the first to translate the metaphor into terms of religious communion.

Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) comments:

In I Corinthians 12:12-26 Paul reinforces ...by means of a common political-philosophical analogy—the “body” politic now viewed as the “body” of Christ. He begins with the analogy by highlighting the two essentials, unity and diversity (one body, with many parts; I Corinthians 12:12, 14), and by focusing on their common experience of the Spirit in conversion as the key to unity (I Corinthians 12:13). But the essence of the elaborations of the analogy (especially I Corinthians 12:15-20) is the need for diversity if there is to be a true body and not simply a monstrosity. By its very nature the analogy shifts focus momentarily from the gifts per se to the diversity of people who make up the community in I Corinthians 12:21-26. (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 583)

The metaphor stresses that Christians are all members of the same team. Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) informs:

The so-called “weak” must not feel that if they happen to have not received certain gifts, they are somehow not a genuine part of the body [I Corinthians 12:15]...Paul reassures those who are anxious about comparisons with supposedly more “gifted” members, and underlines their role, status and welcome. On the other side, he rebukes “the strong” who seem to think that only those of similar social status and similar spiritual gifts are “real” Christians” [I Corinthians 12:20-21]. (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 990)

Marion Soards (b. 1952) asserts that “in Christ unity dominates diversity and makes diversity genuinely meaningful and constructive (Soards, I Corinthians (New International Biblical Commentary), 263).”

Watchman Nee (1903-1972) relays the practical application:

It means that the children of God at Corinth are the Body of Christ; so, both according to the spiritual principle and the spiritual fact, they should express themselves as the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is the universal church, the church which is in all places and throughout all generations both in space and in time. However, the brothers in a locality must at least stand in the same position, applying the same principle to express the same fact. In other words, the minimum boundary of unity is the boundary of locality. (Nee, Further Talks on the Church Life, 109)

Does a functional hierarchy exist in the religious institutions with which you associate? Should it? What analogy would you use to describe the church? What part of the body do you see yourself as serving? Are there any unnecessary parts of the Christian body, e.g. is anyone the appendix? What is the basis of the unity of the body of Christ?

God is the architect of both the human body and its metaphorical counterpart. The Spirit of Christ should be strong enough to make all other differences minor by comparison. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) relays:

In I Corinthians 12:13 Paul recalls for the Corinthians the basis of their unity in the one body: all of them, at the time of their conversion and initiation into the community of Christ’s people, were “in the Spirt...baptized into one body” and “made to drink one Spirit.” (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 214)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) clarifies:

He [Paul] identifies the members of the community, first as “Christ” (I Corinthians 12:12), then as the “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:27), and eventually as “the church” (I Corinthians 12:28). As such, the many members of the Christian community must use all their diverse manifestations of the Spirit “to the good” (I Corinthians 12:7) of the whole, because Christ is the unifying principle of the church. (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (The Anchor Yale Bible), 474)

Though Christ is clearing seen as the glue that holds the unit together, there is a glaring omission from Paul’s analogy as presented in I Corinthians 12. Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) writes:

Curiously, he does not call Christ the “head” of the body in this chapter (but see Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:15-16, 5:23; Colossians 2:19). This may alert us that Paul is here (I Corinthians 12:12-30) using the body metaphor differently than in Ephesians and Colossians. Here the point is not the head-body metaphor but that many parts form one body...In Paul’s mind there is some sense in which the divinely constructed union (I Corinthians 12:13) of the many diverse parts—organically interrelated, interdependently, harmoniously and functionally one body—constitutes now through the Holy Spirit the reality of Christ’s visible presence and activity in the world. (Johnson, 1 Corinthians (IVP New Testament Commentary), 230)

Christ’s headship of the body of Christ is a prominent theme elsewhere in the Pauline epistles (I Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:13, 4:15-16, 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 2:19) including later in this particular letter. Jerome H. Neyrey (b. 1940) writes:

In I Corinthians 15:20-28 Paul speaks of Christ as the new Adam—the new head/source. On one level the argument simply states that as all die in Adam, so all rise in Christ (I Corinthians 15:21-22; see Romans 5:12-21). But the passage says much more...Like other Christians, Paul visualizes Christ’s headship by stating that “all things are put in subject under his feet” (I Corinthians 15:25, 27; see Hebrews 1:13, 2:6-8). Christ is head, both as source and sovereign. (Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters, 136)

Paul sees Christians as the embodiment of Christ in the world with one spirit dictating the body’s movements. Jürgen Becker (b. 1934) argues that for Paul, this is not a metaphor but rather a description of the living solidarity of those who share the same spirit.

In Paul the figurative and comparative use of the body idea as unity in diversity is still largely dominant. Yet because his theology is determined by the new christological being of the eschatalogical church, for him the comparison becomes a statement on the nature of the church. Now the church is the “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:27), not just comparable to the body. Through the one Spirit who expresses himself in the diversity of spiritual gifts, all are baptized into one body which is Christ (I Corinthians 12:12-13). (Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 428)

Is “the body of Christ” merely a metaphor or a reality? How does the church act as Christ’s physical presence in the world? Historically, why has Christianity seen so many schisms? Why have most Christian divisions been rooted in the writings of Paul when the apostle strongly stressed unity? Is Christ the head of your church? Is Christ the head of your life?

“Yes, I see the Church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Why We Can’t Wait, p. 104

Liberals Will Be Made Fat? (Proverbs 11:25)

Who will be enriched (or made fat) according to Proverbs 11:25? A liberal man

Proverbs 11:23-27 forms a unit that addresses the theme of generosity and selfishness. Amid this inclusio, Proverbs 11:24-25 features parallel proverbs that laud being generous including detailing the blessings that flow from benevolence. The King James Version reads:

The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25 KJV)

This translation uses a more traditional definition of liberal: “tending to give freely; generous”. The word is typically rendered in some form of the words “liberal” (ASV, KJV, RSV), “generous”(CEV, HCSB NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV), or “(one who brings) blessing” (ESV, MSG). The latter is truest to the Hebrew (b@rakah) which means “blessing”. R.N. Whybray (1923-1997) explains that the proverb’s subject is:

literally, ‘person of blessing’. This phrase could equally mean ‘a person who has received divine favour’. (Whybray, The Book of Proverbs (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 69)

The English Standard Version conveys this interpretation:

Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered. (Proverbs 11:25 ESV)

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) explains:

A “soul of blessing” (nepeš berakah) is a person who bestows blessings on others. (Thus the Vulgate: anima quae benedicit “a soul that blesses.”) “Blessing” here means material gifts, as in Genesis 33:11; Joshua 15:19; I Samuel 25:27; and II Kings 5:15...In conjunction with Proverbs 11:24, this verse reinterprets Proverbs11:24a (in spite of Proverbs 11:24b) by identifying the one who “scatters” as one who is generous to others. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible), 543)

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

This suggests an allusion to the verse in Psalm 23:5...usually translated “You have anointed my head with oil. My cup runs over.”...According to Rashi, the words nefesh b’rachah (literally, “the soul of blessing”) refers to a person who is generous with money, and the word marveh refers to a person who satisfies the needs of the poor. The verse continues the argument being made by the author of Proverbs: Virtue has a pragmatic purpose. Doing good will result in getting good. The notion of disinterested virtue in the history of ethics evolved much later than the period of time in which the Book of Proverbs was written. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 114)

As noted, the proverb not only encourages generosity but claims that one’s largesse will be rewarded. Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) summarizes:

This saying, in synthetic parallelism, develops the topic of generosity from Proverbs 11:24 through the example of food and drink. Those who feed others will themselves be fed...“Soul” (nepeš) is the throat area, the core of the body or self. A literal translation is “the throat of blessing will grow fat.” One who gives food and drink to others will be given food and drink and will thrive. See Luke 6:38. (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 125)

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) justifies:

The naming of positive consequences for generosity shows that Proverbs is not above naming self-interest for the motivation of good behavior. Both individual and community interest are encompassed in this teaching, since both the self and the other are said to derive good from a person’s giving nature. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 263)

This rationale was a part of Israel’s collective worldview. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) posits:

This group of proverbs [e.g., Proverbs 11:25, 19:17, 22, 22:9] is especially important for the spirit of the community, from which these sayings emanate. Israel experienced its God again and again as the one who looked on the needs and had compassion for his own. It is a response to this work of God that is reflected in those who, by looking to him, minister compassion to others whom they encounter along their way. (Westermann, Roots of Wisdom: The Oldest Proverbs of Israel and Other Peoples, 47-48)

Do you bless others materially? Have you ever witnessed someone being unexpectedly repaid for an altruistic act? Should self interest be a motivating factor in benevolence? Does one always receive blessing in response to generosity?

Many have seen an underlying principle at work in the aphorism. Kenneth T. Aitken (b. 1947) comments:

The paradox highlighted in Proverbs 11:24 rings true: the tight-fisted man ends up the poorer and the open-handed man the richer (cf. Proverbs 11:25). The saying has in mind meanness and generosity with money, and looks toward the poor in society. Speaking about Christian giving, Paul puts it this way: “he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (II Corinthians 9:6). The underlying principle is applicable to life and human relationships in general: as we sometimes say, we get out only what we put in. (Aitken, Proverbs (Old Testament Daily Study Bible Series), 128)

Duane A. Garrett (b. 1953) agrees:

It is axiomatic that greedy and selfish people, epitomized in Western literature as Mr. Scrooge, are hated by the populace at large while generous people gain love and respect. What the hoarder fails to recognize, however, is that in the economy of God the greedy ultimately lose even the material things they try so hard to keep while the benevolent only prosper more and more. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 127)

Cecil Murphey (b. 1933) argues that the proverb touches on a component of divine design:

God has built an important principle in the universe, and one that too many people never understand: Givers receive even more than they give. Jesus stated the principle this way: “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back: (Luke 6:28). (Murphey, Simply Living: Modern Wisdom from the Ancient Book of Proverbs, 149)

With what are you most stingy? With what are you most generous? Would you characterize yourself as a “generous” person? Is the universe designed so that benevolence is rewarded?

“Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need.” - Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931)

Disclaimer: No offense or political affiliation is intended by using Fred Freesqueeze’s image of Michael Moore (b. 1954). Amazingly, if you perform a Google image search of “fat liberal” the results are predominantly images of Moore and by definition, he does embody both adjectives.

Peace of Mind (Isaiah 26:3)

Complete: “Thou shalt keep him in perfect peace ____________________________.” Whose mind is stayed on Thee (Isaiah 26:3)

Isaiah 26 includes a comforting song that calls for trust in God for deliverance. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) specifies:

Usually the unit is divided into two parts, Isaiah 26:1-6 and Isaiah 26:7-21...although different schemes of subdivision have also been suggested. In terms of genre, Isaiah 26:1-6 is classified as a psalm of trust or as a victory song, whereas the last section [Isaiah 26:7-21] is analyzed as a communal complaint. (Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 188)

Unlike much of the material that precedes it, the song deals with Israel’s present situation though scholars debate exactly what crisis is being endured. Hans Wildberger (1910-1986) deciphers:

It has been explained...that the enemy city cannot be identified. There is also virtually nothing in the specific vocabulary that would help to set the piece in any particular epoch; generally it uses the relatively timeless vocabulary of cultic lyric. (Wildberger, Isaiah 13-27: A Continental Commentary, 545)

Proximity to the Babylonian invasion is the usual suspect though it cannot be stated with any certainty. What can be established is that times were not good when the song was penned. Even so, the lyric assures that one can find peace amidst chaos (Isaiah 26:3).

“The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in You.” (Isaiah 26:3 NASB)

The song promises “perfect peace” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV) or being “completely whole” (MSG). The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates the promise literally “in peace—in peace”. Peace (shalowm, as used in the standard Jewish greeting) is listed twice in succession, “peace, peace”. Unlike English, where this redundancy would represent poor grammar, in Hebrew the repetition indicates accent, like underlining or bolding would in English.

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) explains:

The original Hebrew says that God will keep in shâlom, shâlom those whose minds are stayed on Him. The word shâlom means more than a cessation of conflict. It conveys the idea of wholeness, quietness of spirit, safety, blessing, happiness of heart. The double use of the word multiplies its intensity. (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 98)

This doublet is the rationale for the translation “perfect” or “complete” peace. In regards to the other prominent noun in the text, John N. Oswalt (b. 1940) writes:

“mind,” comes from the root idea “to form.” Thus as a noun it frequently refers to that which is formed (Isaiah 29:16; Psalm 103:14; Habakkuk 2:18), often thoughts, purposes, or intentions (cf. Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Deuteronomy 31:21; I Chronicles 28:9, 29:18). As reflected in the present translation, the Hebrew seems to place “the steadfast mind” in an emphatic position in an independent clause at the beginning of the sentence. (Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 468)

Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) clarifies:

The song confidently states that certain people will have perfect peace. Two factors characterize these people...they have a “frame of mind, perspective, constitution” (yēser) that is “steadfast” (sāmak), which implies an undeviating commitment to a purpose, conviction, or person. The root meaning of the translation “steadfast” is “to support” but the Hebrew passive participle carries the idea of “leaning on, depending on, resting on” something...Thus the prophet confidently confesses that the people who have a “despondent perspective” (as opposed to a proud self-confident demeanor) will have complete peace because they trust in God. (Smith, The New American Commentary: Isaiah 1-39, Vol. 15A, 442)

Where do you find comfort in times of peril? When times are bad, do you lean on God? If one is not in perfect peace does it imply that her mind is not fixed upon the divine? How often is your mind focused on God?

Isaiah does not promise that strife will not come, only that one can find peace amidst it. Terry Briley (b. 1956) summarizes:

The song stresses confidence in God as the one who strengthens his people and enables them to accomplish his purpose for them. This confidence does not deny the difficulties and frustrations along the way, but it does encourage the faithful to wait patiently for God. (Briley, Isaiah, Volume 1 (College Press NIV Commentary), 243)

As noted, there is no specific context for this song, making its message all the more timeless. It assures that faith in God is the way to peace. There is always hope for internal peace even amidst the most challenging of trials.

In fact, peace is listed among the “fruits of the Spirit”, Paul’s catalog of nine tangible attributes that characterize the Christian life (Galatians 5:22-23).

Does peace come from an external or internal source? Have you experienced the perfect peace of which Isaiah spoke? Are you experiencing it now?

“We are not at peace with others because we are not at peace with ourselves, and we are not at peace with ourselves because we are not at peace with God.” - Thomas Merton (1915-1968)

The Six-Fingered Giant (II Samuel 21:20)

How many fingers and toes did Goliath have? 24 (II Samuel 21:20)

II Samuel includes a list of four Israelite warriors who defeated Philistine giants during David’s reign (II Samuel 21:15-22). At the outset, the king is said to be “weary” (II Samuel 21:15 NASB) so it is perhaps not surprising that the Bible’s most famous giant killer does not square off against these giants. Instead, the king’s men, Abishai (II Samuel 21:15-17), Sibbecai (II Samuel 21:18), Elhanan (II Samuel 21:19) and David’s nephew Jonathan (II Samuel 21:20-21) are each credited with felling Philistines.

Giants were rare even in biblical times. The word translated “giant” is rapha. It is used only eight times in the Bible, seven appearing in this chapter and its parallel in I Chronicles (II Samuel 21:16, 18, 20, 22; I Chronicles 20:4, 6, 8). The last occurrence is a proper name (I Chronicles 8:2).

The passage is merely a recap and as such details of the battles are scarce. Though hailing from Gath, the last giant is most likely not Goliath as the question and some tradition presumes. The final adversary, defeated by David’s nephew Jonathan, does, however, stand out, even amongst giants. Unlike the first three giants, he is unnamed and is instead identified by a curious digital structure.

There was war at Gath again, where there was a man of great stature who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also had been born to the giant. When he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimei, David’s brother, struck him down. (II Samuel 21:20-21 NASB)

Like a pulp villain, the final foe is a six-fingered giant (II Samuel 21:20; I Chronicles 20:6).

Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) summarizes:

The fourth Philistine was killed in “another battle, which took place at Gath” (II Samuel 21:20), in the heart of Philistine territory. At that location David’s nephew, “Jonathan son of Shimea” (II Samuel 21:21) slew “a hug man with sin fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot” (II Samuel 21:20). This individual, who had the unusual condition known as hexadigitation, was killed when “he taunted Israel.” He too was one of the descendants of Rapha. (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary: Vol. 7), 450)

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) adds:

The last-named giant, whose name is unknown, is described as an abnormal and therefore uncanny man who is also apparently particularly large. His conqueror is a nephew of David’s, unknown elsewhere (II Samuel 13:3, 32). It is hardly possible to identify him with Jonathan the son of Shammah from the list of the thirty in II Samuel 23:33, as the latter is not a Bethlehemite. It is remarkable that all those named here should come from Bethlehem (or its neighbourhood), so that the whole passage seems to be a page from the honours list of Bethlehem, which is added here to give higher praise to David of Bethlehem. (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 388)

The giant has sexdactyly (also known hexadactyly or more generically as polydactyly), a genetic condition in which a person has six fingers on one or both hands or six toes on one or both feet. Possessing a supernumerary finger or toe is not particularly uncommon, occurring one in every 500 to 1000 births. In fact, this genetically inheritable condition is actually autosomal-dominant though the trait has obviously not become predominant. Some populations feature a larger proportion of six-fingered people. In most cases, the extra digit has limited or no mobility and is therefore surgically removed shortly after birth. Having 24 working digits is extremely rare. Former Major League pitcher Antonio Alfonseca (b. 1972) is one such case, though he asserted that his extra fingers had little affect on his pitching as they seldom contacted the ball. In 2011, the New York Daily News profiled a Cuban named Yoandri Hernandez Garrido, nicknamed “Twenty-four”, who parlayed his extra digits into cash by using his enhanced grip to easily scale palm trees to acquire coconuts and posing for photographs with tourists in Baracoa.

Have you ever met a giant? Has someone ever fought a battle for you when you were too weary to fight yourself? What is your most distinguishing physical feature? Would having additional digits be a benefit or a detriment? Why was this detail about the giant included? How would the original audience have perceived the adversary’s appearance?

Superstitiously, polydactyly has been associated with proof of good (kings, divine blessing, quasi-divine attributes), evil (witches, the offspring of the watchers in I Enoch) and more recently inbreeding (some Appalachian towns are known “Six Finger [insert town here]”).

The original audience likely saw the giant polydactyly as the ultimate in intimidation. Stephen J. Andrews (b. 1954) explains, “A person with four extra digits was very unusual, and this would have made him seem especially formidable (Andrews, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 348).”

Renowned composer Dennis Jernigan (b. 1959) adds:

The..last giant, unlike his kinsmen Goliath, Ishbi-Benob, Saph, and Lahmi, is given no name in the Bible. Instead, he is identified by an unusual physical characteristic that today is known as polydactyly: Rather than having five fingers or five toes, he had six. This trait must have made him seem more extraordinary and more fearsome to others of his day than even his great height did. (Jernigan, Giant Killers: Crushing Strongholds, Securing Freedom in Your Life)

Peter R. Ackroyd (1917-2005) writes bluntly, “The giant mentioned here is also a monster in having excess fingers and toes (Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New English Bible), 203).”

Though writing in the days before political correctness, Ackroyd hits the nail on the head - to his enemies, the man was perceived as a monster. And yet somehow, presumably through divine intervention, the monster was defeated.

What was more intimidating: the man’s size or his extra fingers and toes? (In Princess Bride terms, would you rather battle Fezzik or Count Rugen?) Why is the giant unnamed? Can you name your most imposing adversary? What is the fight of your life? Do you have faith that ,with God’s help, you can defeat it?

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Beyond Good and Evil, p. 146

Vashti: Heroine of Villainess? (Esther 1)

Who was queen before Esther? Vashti

The first female character named in the book of Esther is not its name sake but rather her royal predecessor, Vashti (Esther 1:9). In fact, the book begins with the end of Vashti. Though it spans only a chapter in the narrative, four years lapse between the fall of Vashti (Esther 1:3) and the rise of Esther (Esther 2:16).

At the story’s outset, Persia’s reigning couple is Ahasuerus, long associated with Xerxes (though contemporary scholars debate that point), and Vashti. Unfortunately, the historical record has evidence of neither Vashti nor Esther. In regards to wives of Xerxes, Herodotus speaks only of Amestris (Herodotus 7.61). Wesley J. Fuerst (1930-2007) summarizes, “Herodotus, the Greek traveller and historian, says that the name of Xerxes’ queen was Amestris. Whether there was such a Vashti, or for that matter an Esther, cannot be proved from extra-biblical sources (Fuerst, The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Lamentations (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 46).”

Karen H. Jobes (b. 1952) reasons:

Some have claimed the name Vashti sounds similar to the Old Persian for beautiful woman. If so, the name simply may be a literary device used to characterize the woman otherwise known to history as Amestris...Perhaps Herodotus mentions only Amestris, whether or not she was Vashti, because he was interested only in the royal wives who bore the successors to the throne. (Jobes, Esther (The NIV Application Commentary), 66-67)

The story commences with a glimpse into ancient Persian revelry, going to great lengths to detail the extravagance. Within the book’s first nine verses, the royal family hosts three lavish parties (Esther 1:4-9)! The first bash persists for 180 days (Esther 1:4) and when this half year of partying concludes, Ahasuerus is not ready to halt the festivities so he holds a seven-day banquet for the men of the royal citadel, Susa (Esther 1:5). Meanwhile Vashti hosts a feast for the women (Esther 1:9). Those who connect Ahasuerus to Xerxes have deduced that the parties are fundraisers for a military campaign against the Greeks that ultimately failed at Hellespont.

Mark Mangano (b. 1958) writes:

The king’s power, wealth, majesty, and generosity are highlighted by the description of the banquets held in Susa, where the king is gathering support for his campaign against Greece. The original readers would have known that Xerxes returned from Greece four years later after a defeat that depleted his royal wealth. (Mangano, Esther & Daniel (College Press NIV Commentary), 43)

After displaying his many royal possessions, on the final day of his final party, Ahasuerus decides it is time to flaunt his most lovely prize and summons queen Vashti to parade her beauty before his guests (Esther 1:11).

On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, to bring Queen Vashti before the king with her royal crown in order to display her beauty to the people and the princes, for she was beautiful. (Esther 1:10-11 NASB)

All expectations point to Vashti following orders as everyone else in the story has done so, taking part in the drunken revelry at the king’s whim. Thus far, Vashti has acted only once in the text, to host a royal party (Esther 1:9). Her second act is far more eventful. Apparently the palace is not exempt from marital strife as Vashti does the unthinkable: she flatly refuses the king (Esther 1:12)! In choosing dignity over royalty, Vashti violates a litany of cultural expectations she is supposed to fulfill.

Most assume that given the heavy drinking involved (Esther 1:7-8, 10) and the queen’s refusal (Esther 1:12), the king’s request entailed denigrating Vashti. Joseph Telushkin (b. 1948) concludes, “The text does not state whether the king intends to display Vashti in the nude, but its emphasis on Ahasuerus’s drunkenness when he summons Vashti suggests that his intentions might well be less than honorable (Telushkin, Biblical Literacy: The Most Important People, Events, and Ideas of the Hebrew Bible).”

Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) speculates:

It is unclear but certainly intimated that the king orders Vashti to come wearing perhaps only the crown and nothing else. The Targum assumes such an interpretation and attributes it to Vashti’s moral breakdown. According to the Targum, “The king ordered seven courtiers to bring Vashti the Queen naked. This was [punishment] for her having made Jewish girls work naked cording wool and flax on the Sabbath. Because of this, it was decreed against her to be brought naked, dressed only in her royal crown on her head.” (Olitzy, Esther: A Modern Commentary, 10)

Vashti is a dangerous figure to those who wish to maintain order. Ahasuerus’ advisors conclude that the queen has not only wronged the king, but the princes and people as well (Esther 1:16). In response, the guardians of the status quo revoke her royal title (Esther 1:19).

Jon D. Levenson (b. 1949) summarizes:

The result is a further escalation of the crisis, for the domestic difficulties of the royal couple become the occasion for an imperial edict deposing Vashti and ordering every man to be master of his household, a task at which the king who issues the edict has proven a conspicuous failure (Esther 1:16-22). (Levenson, Esther: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 2)

Vashti’s stand has dramatic consequences for the queen as she is expelled from the kingdom (Esther 1:13-22).

The rationale behind Vashti’s refusal is not stated. Interpretations range from Vashti being a dignified and virtuous queen to a rebellious woman who refuses to obey her husband. As evidenced by the Targum, traditionally, the spirit of patriarchy has strongly influenced the interpretation with the queen often playing the villain. There is simply not enough information to decide with any certainty. What is undeniable is that Vashti’s choice represents a revolutionary and defiant act.

Carol M. Bechtel (b. 1959) writes:

In one bold stroke, Vashti single-handedly exposes the mighty Ahasuerus for the weak, ineffectual man that he is (at least by ancient standards). He may command the entire army of Persia and Media and rule over “one hundred and twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia” (Esther 1:1), but he cannot control his own wife. (Bechtel, Esther (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 8)

The natural comparison between Vashti and Esther has long been discussed. Catherine Clark Kroeger (1925-2011) writes:

The book of Esther has been interpreted as a classic stereotyping of how women shoulder their way to power. Straightforward women like Vashti lose their position, while Esther gets her way through recourse to feminine charm and cunning artifice. (Kroeger, The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 268)

What cultural expectations do modern women face? When have you seen dire consequences for a respectable choice? Do you think the loss of her crown made Vashti regret her decision? Why did Vashti refuse her husband’s request? What would have happened had Vashti consented to the king’s demands?

From a narrative perspective, if Vashti consents, neither she nor Esther would have been remembered. The cost to her might have been greater than even her legacy and her crown. Carol Lakey Hess (b. 1957) holds that complying would have cost Vashti her very identity.

The loss of self for women is a quiet thing. Had Queen Vashti disregarded her own feelings and submitted to the will of King Ahasuerus, the resulting loss of herself would have occurred ever so quietly. No one would have noticed…obedience to husband, social convention, and other authorities is often thought more important than woman’s obedience to her inner call to integrity. (Hess, Caretakers of Our Common House: Women’s Development in Communities of Faith,14)

Not surprisingly, feminists have long been taken with the defiant queen. Carol M. Bechtel (b. 1959) notes:

The character of Vashti has long fascinated feminists and frightened misogynists. Although she makes only a brief appearance in the first chapter, it is long enough to be instructive. She may be queen, but she is still a woman in the midst of a patriarchal culture, and thus has limited control over her situation...It is hard not to admire her courage, even while one recognizes that it costs her dearly. (Bechtel, Esther (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 11)

Early feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) viewed Vashti as an exemplary woman:

Vashti is conspicuous as the first woman recorded whose self-respect and courage enabled her to act contrary to the will of her husband. She was the first “woman who dared”...Except Deborah as judge, no example had been given of a woman who formed her own judgment and acted upon it. There had been no exhibition of a self-respecting womanhood which might stand for a higher type of social life than was customary among men. (Stanton, The Woman's Bible, Part I & II, 255)

Athalya Brenner (b. 1943) reminds:

A number of modern feminist writers have, in fact, found their heroine in Vashti, their empathy with her, while regarding Esther as a weak collaborator with tyranny, an antifeminist...For the writer of Esther, however, Vashti’s foolishness is the foil for Esther’s wisdom, her dismissal justified and, indeed, from a narrative point of view, the sparks that commences the story. (Brenner, A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna, 33-34)

Esther is not an overtly religious book. As God is not mentioned by name in the course of the narrative, one of the challenges for the reader is placing God in the story.

Is God with Vashti? How is the reader intended to view the fallen queen? Does the writer intend for Esther to be compared to her predecessor? Does Esther represent the upgrade that Ahasuerus had hoped for (Esther 1:19)?

“To free us from the expectations of others, to give us back to ourselves -- there lies the great, singular power of self-respect.” - Joan Didion (b. 1934), Slouching Towards Bethlehem, p. 148