Hammering Out Cherubim (Exodus 25:18)

What was on either end of the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant? A cherub (Exodus 25:18)

In the midst of the Israelites’ wilderness wandering, God lays out specific instructions regarding the tabernacle and its contents (Exodus 25-31). The first item detailed is the Ark of the Covenant, a chest that represents the Old Testament’s most holy article (Exodus 25:10-22).

Stephen J. Binz (b. 1955) acknowledges:

The ark takes first place among the elements of the Dwelling due to its central importance in the whole structure. It is the symbol and vehicle of God’s nearness with Israel, serving as both container for the symbols of the covenant and as throne for Yahweh’s presence. Its size was unimposing; a cubit [Exodus 25:10] represented the distance from one’s elbow to fingertips. The opulence of its gold plating and molding suggests its importance as the most sacred object in the Dwelling. (Binz, God of Freedom and Life: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 99)

The second half of the instructions describe the construction of the “atonement cover” (MSG, NIV, NLT) or “mercy seat” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NSRV, RSV), the box’s top (Exodus 25:17-22). Two golden cherubim (the plural of cherub) are ordered to flank the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18).

You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:18 NASB)

It is between these cherubim that God promises to speak to the Israelites (Exodus 25:22).

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) details:

The dimensions of the atonement cover are exactly those of the lid of the ark (see Exodus 25:10) it was designed to fit over precisely. It was to be made of pure gold, not a slab of wood overlaid with gold as the rest of the major surfaces of the ark were. At its ends were two pure “hammered gold” statues of uncertain height (but probably more than a cubit high at the very most and more likely only a few inches high in light of the overall proportions of the ark) that portrayed cherubim. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 571)

Cherubim are supernatural beings often equated with angels. Aside from their name, Exodus provides no further description of the creatures.

Peter Enns (b. 1961) denotes:

The sudden reference to these creatures (in the Pentateuch cherubim also occur in Genesis 3:24 and Numbers 7:89) implies that they need no explanation for the Israelite readers. Cherubim appear not only over the cover but throughout the design of the tabernacle, a sign that the tabernacle is a symbolic representation of God’s heavenly dwelling...The presence of the cherubim also emphasizes the holiness of the ark...It is God’s location above the cover and between the cherubim that has led some scholars to regard the cover as God’s throne and the ark itself his footstool. This is not just a scholarly conjecture. A number of passages speak of God being enthroned between the cherubim (I Samuel 4:4; II Samuel 6:2; Psalm 80:1, 99:1). (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 512)

Cherubim become the first angels to appear in the Bible when they guard the abandoned garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24). In Exodus, they reprise their role as bodyguards, symbolically guarding the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18).

Mark S. Smith (b. 1955) catalogs:

Cherubim guard the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24), and they mark the walls of the Jerusalem temple (I Kings 6:29-32; cf. Ezekiel 41:18-10). In II Samuel 22:11 (Psalm 18:11) the Lord rides his cherub on the wind. Two cherubs make up two sides of a royal throne on a piece of ivory from Megiddo; the comparison suggests that the ark had a propitiatory function as a throne, with the Lord serving as divine king. Adding the sizes of the ark and the propitiatory heights, the seat of the throne stands five feet in height and conjures a picture of a superman-size divine king. (Smith, Exodus (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 97)

The cherubim are one of the most distinctive aspects of the Ark of the Covenant. Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) lauds:

Its outstanding features are its two cherubim of gold...one mounted on each end of the cover and facing each other (Exodus 25:19-20). Neither their features nor their function are described, beyond the reference to faces and wings...Artists have depicted in diverse ways not only their appearance but also their position on the mercy seat and the way their wings touch each other. (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 340)

John I. Durham (b. 1933) describes:

These cherubs were to be made with their wings spread and stretched out over the Ark-Cover, their bodies turned toward each other, their faces bowed towards the Ark-Cover. The cherubs have usually been connected with Yahweh’s throne, both as guardians and bearers. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3), 359)

Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) sees a strong parallel between the Ark’s winged cherubim and the Egyptian throne room:

The relief at Abu Simbel...shows Ramses’ cartouche, the Egyptian symbol of the presence of the god that Ramses was regarded to be, flanked on either side by a representation of the falcon god, Horus. The wings of Horus cover pharaoh’s garden throne in a symbol of divine protection. The relief is starkly similar to the description of the wings of the two cherubim that cover and protect Yahweh’s golden throne in the Tabernacle. (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 96)

J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) adds:

The cherubim resemble figures in Assyrian and Canaanite art that can flank a throne. In the tabernacle, they serve as the throne or throne-flank above which the LORD is invisibly seated. Their symbolism receives added dimension from the reference to cherubim in Genesis 3:24. There, the cherubim guard a sacred garden with its tree of life, intended for human habitation but now guarded from further profanation by those who have violated the life-serving law of that garden. (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 195)

The ornamentation would have been quite expensive. Gayle A. McCoy estimates:

Made of hammered pure gold, these cherubim, according to Exodus 25:18...were “graven in gold.”...The Bible does not give us an exact size of the cherubim, but we can estimate the approximate size because the cherubim were large enough that their wings touched over the mercy seat (Exodus 25:20). The cherubim could have been cast or molded on an armature making the figures hollow. As we see in...Exodus 25:12, casting was a known Egyptian skill at this time. If sculpture-forming by use of an armature was knot known at that time, the molding could have been on average about half-inch thick...On the other hand, if they were solid gold figures, they would weigh much, much more than hollow figures. Let us assume that they used hollow figures and covered them with approximately 904 lbs. of gold. “Graven,” meaning to carve (Exodus 25:18), is as close as the Bible tells us how the cherubim were formed. Of course, carving is essentially what a sculptor does, whether in wood, stone or clay. (McCoy, God’s Golden Box: The Ark of the Covenant, 83)

Exactly what cherubim look like is subject to debate. H.L. Ellison (1903-1983) recognizes:

The cherubim are variously depicted. Here they are not described, but there are variants between Ezekiel 1:5-12, 41:18-10; Revelation 4:6-7. They are apparently the guardian spirits of this earthly creation: the description is symbolic, and so variation is unimportant. (Ellison, Exodus (Old Testament Daily Study Bible Series), 142)

James K. Bruckner (b. 1957) adds:

The text does not describe the features of the cherubim in further detail, but it is certain they were not the chubby winged boys of European art. Ezekiel pictures them with four faces each (man, lion, ox, eagle; Ezekiel 10:14) and also with two faces (man and lion; Ezekiel 41:18-19). Tradition describes them as having the face of a man and the body of a bill or lion (like a sphinx). Their functions are to guard holy things and attend the Lord. In Genesis 3:24, cherubim guarded the entrance to the garden of Eden, in order to protect the tree of life. The cherubim are the Lord’s chariot in Psalm 18:10, and also in Ezekiel 10. (Bruckner, Exodus (New International Biblical Commentary), 240-241)

Though most likely inaccurate, cherubim have long been associated with childish features. Joel M. Hoffman (b. 1968) traces this fallacy back to the great Jewish rabbi, Rashi (1040-1105):

Rashi [1040-1105] points out that the cherubs have “the image of a child’s face.” His reasoning? The Hebrew word for cherubs is kruvim, a word that happens to sound like the Aramaic word k’ravya. (The similarity is more pronounced in Hebrew than in English transliterations here, because in Hebrew vowels are generally less important than they are in English.) The Aramaic prefix k’ravya means “like child” in Aramaic. Rashi, basing his decision on the mid-first-millennium Babylonian Talmud, concludes that the kruvim must be k’ravya—that is, the cherubs must be “like a child.” (Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning, 29-30)

There is one constant in the depiction of cherubim. Jennie R. Ebeling (b. 1972) relays:

The only uniformity among the many examples known from ancient Near Eastern art is that cherubim were winged creatures. Statues and reliefs depicting various types of cherubim have been found at many Near Eastern sites, including Aleppo, Carchemish, and Byblos; carved ivory depictions of cherubim have been found at Samaria and Nimrud. Many examples of colossal winged bulls and other beasts are known from Babylonian and Assyrian palaces and temples. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 233)

The reason for the winged creatures’ presence atop the mercy seat is not specified. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) concludes:

Whatever the original inspiration, the cherubim of the Tabernacle certainly communicate some concepts of God that are fundamental to the religion of Israel. As bearers of the celestial throne, they evoke belief in divine, transcendent sovereignty. Their permanent place above the Ark expresses God’s immanence—His enduring presence in the covenanated community of Israel. Their outstretched wings represent the idea of consummate mobility, that is, of God’s omnipresence. (Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 161)

What sensation is the imagery of the Ark of the Covenant designed to evoke? What does the architecture of the Ark communicate about God? Why are cherubs perched atop Israel’s holiest artifact? How do you visualize cherubs? Do these cherubim violate the second commandment’s prohibition against graven images?

Some have seen a contradiction between the mandate to adorn the ark with golden cherubim (Exodus 25:18-20) and the disallowance of creating “graven images” issued just five chapters earlier (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:15- 16). The forbidden graven images are those that would be worshiped as false gods. In contrast, others have used this passage to support the veneration of images, seeing the passage as irrefutable evidence that iconography has an approved place in authorized worship.

Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944) deciphers:

In the Old Testament, alongside the prohibition of humanlike images, it was commanded that sculptural gold images of angels be made. What meaning can we attach to this apparent contradiction, which for some proves that human images were prohibited while for others is proves just the opposite? The portrayal of angels — and this is the crux of the matter — contained human images, in virtue of the cohumanity of angels. Of course they differed from human images in some of their particular traits, that expressed their specifically angelic nature (wings, the absence of gender, a youthful appearance), but these traits did not change the human character of the image itself (just as in general the Old Testament angelophanies were in the human image). Thus, even though the religious reproduction of the human image, the icon of humanity, was prohibited directly, it was prescribed indirectly, in the icons of angels. Why? The reason is obvious: in the portrayals of angels the human image was not darkened by sin. (Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, 59-60)

Jon E. Roeckelein (b.1937) chronicles:

Curiously, F.L. Cross [1900-1968] and E.A. Livingstone...state that “there is no mention of imagery in the New Testament, as at least from the time of the Maccabees the Palestinian Jews had observed the second commandment religiously” (cf. W.E. Vine [1873-1949] [1981], and a literal distinction between the terms image and imagery; while the term image actually is used in the New Testament [e.g., II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3], the derivative term imagery as referring to idols, statues, and images–as objects of worship or veneration and as employed in the Old Testament—does not appear in the New Testament.) However, Cross and Livingstone..also state that “[i]t was only when the theological significance of the Incarnation came to be more fully grasped, and what was involved in the fact that God had become visible by making human nature better understood, that, to many, there seemed to be no further obstacle to the use of images and other products of artistic gifts of mankind in the service of the true religion.” (Roeckelein, Imagery in Psychology: A Reference Guide, 135)

How does your church visually promote worship? How important is aesthetics to a place of worship? Why? Do visual representations of spiritual ideas help your faith?

“The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy.” - Ezra Pound (1885-1972), “Affirmations IV: As for Imagisme”. New Age 16.13 (January 28, 1915), pages 349-350

The (S)Word of God (Hebrews 4:12)

Which book describes the Word of God as a “two-edged sword”? Hebrews (Hebrews 4:12)

A long persuasive segment of Hebrews (Hebrews 3:1-4:11) famously concludes with a poem which powerfully affirms God’s word (Hebrews 4:12-13). Harold W. Attridge (b. 1946) calls the brief hymn “a rhapsody on God’s penetrating word” (Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), 46).”

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 NASB)

Though compared to a sword, the destructive power of God’s word is not being emphasized.

God’s word is described as being alive. David L. Allen (b. 1957) documents:

The use of zon (“living”) to qualify “word” implies personality. Nowhere else in Hebrews in this word used to describe non-personal life, but it is used four times of God, twice of Jesus, and five times of human life. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 286)

God’s word is also active. Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) denotes, “The Greek word here is energēs, from which we get our word energy. The Bible is high-voltage. It has the unlimited energy of God behind it and will not return to Him void (Isaiah 55:11). (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 76).”

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

The word is “active” in the sense that it speeds to fulfill the purpose for which it has been uttered: this self-fulfilling character which it possesses is well summed up in Isaiah 55:11 where the God of Israel says of “my word...that goes forth from my mouth”: “it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 112)

Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) records:

This dynamic understanding of the word of God is in line with the witness of the Old Testament itself, and was familiar in contemporary Judaism. The word of God was regularly thought of as the effective means of God’s creative and judging activity, and was occasionally personified. The instrument by which the word was delivered, that is, the tongue, was occasionally depicted under the image of a sword. In Wisdom of Solomon 18:14-16 the word of God is personified as a warrior who bears the sharp sword of God’s decrees of judgment on the Egyptians at the exodus. There are verbal links with Philo, who exploits the imagery in his own way by finding, among other things, allegorical references to the Logos as a ‘cutter’. (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 174)

The word of God is compared to a specific type of sword. There are two primary Greek terms used for sword and this one, machaira, is the smaller variety, more akin to a dagger (pictured).

Paul Ellingworth (b. 1931) distinguishes:

The use of μάραιρα (Hebrews 11:34, 37) raises two questions: (1) the type of weapon referred to, and (2) the associations of the term, particularly in metaphorical expressions such as this. In classical and modern Greek alike, ῥομφαια is a large sword while μάραιρα is a knife or sabre (cf. modern Greek μάραιρα, a stab). The distinction virtually disappears in the LXX (see, e.g., Ezekiel 5:1ff.), where both terms are frequent and most commonly translate hereb (in Genesis 11:6, 10 μάραιρα of a sacrificial knife; cf. Josephus [37-100] Antiquities 6. 190 [9.5]). In I Maccabees 4:6; II Maccabees 5:13, μάραιρα must mean “sword”; in Joshua 5:2 “knife,” as perhaps in Luke 22:38...In the New Testament, μάραιρα, is more common than ῥομφαια but there is considerable overlap of meaning: both terms are associated with divine judgment (μάραιρα, Revelation 13:10; ῥομφαια, Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 16), with judicial violence of persecution (μάραιρα, Mark 14:43, 47ff; Acts 12:2; Romans 8:35; Hebrews 11:34, 37; Revelation 6:4, 13:14; ῥομφαια, Revelation 6:8), and, as in the present verse, with the word of God (μάραιρα, Ephesians 6:17; ῥομφαια Revelation 19:15, 21). Sacrificial associations have been suggested for μάραιρα in Luke 22:38, as certainly in Genesis 22:6, 10, but in the present context the meaning is rather that of God’s power, through his word, to examine, to judge, and if necessary to destroy the guilt. The image of a knife is more appropriate to the idea of probing, which is directly expressed in the text; the traditional translation “sword” expresses the underlying thought of divine judgment. (Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 262)

With this precision in mind, The Message paraphrases,“His powerful Word is sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, cutting through everything, whether doubt or defense, laying us open to listen and obey (Hebrews 4:12 MSG).”

Calvin Miller (b. 1936) recounts:

The Roman infantry used the machaira as its main battle sword. It was not a long, imposing weapon. In fact, it was a very short sword whose double-edged blade extended only about 18 inches. The enemies of Rome must have felt amused when they first saw these world conquerors and empire builders advancing into battle with such miniaturized weapons. But they changed their minds quickly once they saw how effectively the sword served in battle. Rome’s legionaries could chop up all their opponents at close range. The Romans carved an empire out of a barbaric world with an eighteen-inch blade...In a similar way, the sword of God’s Word is our machaira, God’s answer to life’s smothering entanglements. (Miller, Loving God Up Close: Rekindling Your Relationship with the Holy Spirit, 84)

Equating the word of God to a sword is not unique to Hebrews. George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) explains:

Elsewhere in the New Testament, authors associate the sword imagery with the word of God. For example, in Ephesians 6:17 the word of God is referred to as “the sword of the spirit”; in Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 19:15 the “sharp sword” proceeds from the mouth of the Son of Man, a symbol of the dynamic, spoken word of judgment. In Hebrews 4:12-13 the word is a sharp sword of discernment, which penetrates the darkest corners of human existence. (Guthrie, Hebrews (The NIV Application Commentary, 155-156)

James W. Thompson (b. 1942) adds:

The “two-edged sword” is an instrument for battle (cf. Judges 3:16) that was used metaphorically in a variety of contexts (cf. Psalm 149:6; Proverbs 5:4; Revelation 1:16). The sword is a common metaphor for God’s judgment in the Bible and Jewish literature (Deuteronomy 32:41; Psalm 17:13; Isaiah 27:1, 34:5, 66:16; Matthew 10:34; Ephesians 6:17). According to apocalyptic literature, God comes with the sword of judgment (I Enoch 88.2; Revelation 1:16, 2:16, 19:15, 21). (Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 87)

The most prominent reference aligning word and sword occurs in the description of the “the whole armor of God” (Ephesians 6:10-17). Though the same Greek term for sword is used in both passages, the meaning in Hebrews 4:12 is decidedly different.

Woodrow Kroll (b. 1944) explains:

Hebrews 4:12 contains one of the most powerful ideas about the effectiveness of God’s Word in a person’s life. Based on Ephesians 6:17, we often call the Bible “the sword of the Spirit” as part of the spiritual armor with which God equips the believer. As a sword, God’s Word is a weapon in spiritual warfare. But the passage in Hebrews 4 highlights a different purpose of God’s Word...The context shifts from the sword of the Spirit as a weapon in external conflict to a tool God uses in His internal work in our lives. (Kroll, Hebrews: Our Superior Savior (Back to the Bible Study Guides), 30)

The sword cuts deep. Hebrews affirms the word’s ability to penetrate through the surface to the inner, spiritual reality. Marie E. Isaacs deciphers:

In Hebrews 4:12 “spirit and soul,” “joints and marrow,” and “thoughts and intentions” function not as pairs of opposites but as synonyms. In hellenistic Jewish writings, soul (psychē) and spirit (pneuma) could be used interchangeably...Here the three pairs conjure up the idea of what is ostensibly indivisible. God’s word has the ability to bring judgment even to the seemingly impenetrable. (Isaacs, Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 67)

Gordon R. Lewis (b. 1926) and Bruce A. Demarest (b. 1935) concur:

Hebrews 4:12...makes no metaphysical distinction between soul and spirit. Rather the text reflects a literary technique in which the author used four pairs of quasi-synonyms to stress the all-inclusive power of the Word in a person’s life. (Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology, 141)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) rhapsodizes:

In time-honored homiletical fashion, the Preacher caps the three points of his sermon-within-a-sermon with a poem, a hymnlike tribute to the power of God’s word (Hebrews 4:12-13). Sharper than any earthly two-edged sword, the speech of God knifes through the curtain between heaven and earth, piercing into the depths of humanity, exposing to view the secret “intentions of the heart.” This sword is so sharp that it can separate even “the soul from the spirit,” dividing between what really matters and what seems to matter. No one can hide from this speech act of God; the word of God unveils every human life, laid bare before the eyes of God. The word of God takes an ordinary day and makes it “today,” takes an ordinary moment and makes it the time of crisis and decision, takes a routine event and makes it the theater of the glory of God, takes an ordinary life and calls it to holiness. (Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 61)

Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) agrees, processing:

First, it pierces, cutting through the excuses we give, the rationalizations we manufacture and the barriers we raise. Second, the Word of God is able to judge, exposing the truth about our innermost thoughts and motivations and leaving nothing in our lives untouched. Zane Hodges [1932-2008] writes, “The inner life of a Christian is often a strange mixture of motivations both genuinely spiritual and completely human. It takes a supernaturally discerning agent such as the Word of God to sort these out and to expose what is of the flesh.” (Swindoll, Living on the Ragged Edge Workbook: Finding Joy in a World Gone Mad)

John Piper (b. 1946) concludes:

What is the point in saying that the “word of God” pierces to the “division of soul and spirit”? The point is that it’s the Word of God that reveals to us our true selves. Are we spiritual or are we natural? Are we born of God and spiritually alive, or are we deceiving ourselves and spiritually dead? Are the “thoughts and intentions of our hearts” spiritual thoughts and intentions or only natural thoughts and intentions? Only the “word of God” can “judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” as Hebrews 4:12 says. (Piper, Pierced by the Word: Thirty-One Meditations for Your Soul, 23)

How have you experienced the word of God as living and active in your life? Do you view the machaira as an offensive or defensive weapon? What is the world’s sharpest sword? Is there a better analogy for the word of God than a sword ? What is meant by the “word of God”? Is the expression limited to the Bible?

Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) archives:

Considerable debate has occurred concerning the meaning of the term “the word of God” in Hebrews 4:12. The majority of patristic writers and commentators up to the Reformation period took it as referring to Christ as the Word logos of God. But elsewhere in Hebrews we find no indication that the author held to a logos Christology similar to that of the prologue to the Gospel of John. Furthermore, on this interpretation Jesus would be likened to a sword, which is rather odd...A second popular interpretation equates “word of God” with Scripture, meaning the Old Testament. Inasmuch as God speaks to us in Scripture, this interpretation is not wrong, but it is only a secondary meaning. Our author is thinking primarily of God’s direct speech to the heart, and the present statement was probably inspired by his repeated reference to hearing God’s voice in the preceding verses (Hebrews 3:7, 15, 16, 4:2, 7). The Israelites had no access to Scripture, yet they heard the word of God. (Hagner, Encountering the Book of Hebrews: An Exposition, 76)

Archbishop Dmitri Royster (1923-2011) argues there is little difference between interpreting the word of God as Jesus himself and broader readings:

Some modern interpreters seem to avoid identifying this logos with the Logos or Son of God, preferring to see it as a reference to the whole body of revealed truth, and there are some of the Fathers who understand it as both...In any event, the “Word of God” and His word are intimately united, because when God speaks to man in the New Covenant as He did in the Old, it is by means of His Son, His Word. (Royster, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary, 65)

D. Stephen Long (b. 1960) advises not to place limitations on the “word of God”:

Anyone who would confine its meaning to the original material conditions of its production (the author, the original autograph, the concrete people who first heard and received it), would neglect the ongoing material conditions that make Scripture to be Scripture: those who preserve it, continue to receive it as holy, and seek to hear it, repeating its words in nonidentical situations. This is what matters most. (Long, Hebrews: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 79)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) resolves:

When Hebrews speaks of the “word of God” (logos tou theou) as “living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting to the division between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, able to discern the thoughts and conceptions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12), it clearly means more than Scripture. It means God: “there is no creature that is not visible to him. All things like naked and exposed to his eyes” (Hebrews 4:13)...Nevertheless, that “word of God” does speak powerfully through Scripture, through God’s son, and now powerfully through the work of the Holy Spirit among them. (Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 46)

How do you define “the word of God”? Does God speak today? Is God’s communication with contemporary believers less “God’s word” than Scripture?

“We must allow the Word of God to confront us, to disturb our security, to undermine our complacency and to overthrow our patterns of thought and behavior.” - John R.W. Stott (1921-2011), Authentic Christianity, p. 105

Baby, It’s Warm Outside (Song of Solomon 2)

In which book do you find this: “For lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth, and the time of the singing of birds is come”? Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 2:11, 12)

The Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs) is a conversation between two lovers. The woman famously advises, “Do not arouse or awaken love/until it so desires (Song of Solomon 2:7 NASB)”, or in other words, wait until the time is right.

This admonition is immediately followed by the composition’s eighth poem (Song of Solomon 2:8-17). In it, the woman recounts that her lover has said:

For behold, the winter is past, The rain is over and gone. The flowers have already appeared in the land; The time has arrived for pruning the vines, And the voice of the turtledove has been heard in our land. (Song of Solomon 2:11-12 NASB)

The back and forth banter between the lovers is comparable to the pop standard “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, premiered by Frank Loesser (1910-1969) and Lynn Garland (b.1917) in 1944 and re-popularized by Zooey Deschanel (b. 1980) and Leon Redbone (b. 1949) in the 2003 film Elf. The song features seesawing repartee between a suitor and his sweetheart in which the man repeatedly attempts to convince the woman to stay inside with him because it is cold outside. Song of Solomon also features alternating dialogue with a man attempting to convince a woman that the time is right for love; only his argument is that it is warm outside.

The man’s thesis centers around the time of year as he attempts to draw his lover’s attention to the pronounced change in seasons experienced by Israel. J. Cheryl Exum (b. 1946) writes:

With the particle hinnēh, “Look!,” the man directs the woman’s (and the reader’s) attention to spring’s unfolding. (The immediacy of “look” is even more pronounced in the fragment of this text found at Qumran, which reads hinnēh at the beginning of Song of Solomon 2:12 and Song of Solomon 2:13 as well [4QCant, 11.3. 5]). “Winter” refers to the rainy season, which usually ends around mid-April. The time described seems to be May or June, when figs and vines ripen and migratory birds, like the turtledove, appear. Hebrew zāmîr is associated with two different roots, one meaning “singing” and the other “pruning.” Christian D. Ginsburg [1831-1914] argues that singing is meant, since, like all the other pleasures of spring depicted, it is a gift of nature to be enjoyed, whereas pruning involves engaging in labor. (Exum, Song of Songs (Old Testament Library), 127)

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) concurs:

The man’s invitation in the previous verse (Song of Solomon 2:10) now receives a motive clause. Winter is gone and spring has arrived. Springtime is the universal time for love: warm weather, the fragrance of flowers — a time to go outside, a time for the removal of clothes and intimacy. The couple can leave the urban setting and go out to the countryside, the place of lovemaking and union. While the word for winter (setēw) is rare, the word for rains (gešem) is one of the more common words out of the many for rain in Israel. Since winter (October-April) is the only real time for rain in Palestine, the two words are variants on the same theme. Since the rains end in April, it is likely that the scene evokes a temporal setting in May...It’s springtime, the right time for love. (Longman, Song of Songs (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 121)

Othmar Keel (b. 1937) adds:

The statements...emphasize primarily the propitiousness of the hour. The Hebrew word for “flowers” in Song of Solomon 2:12a...does not refer merely to the splendor of the flowery meadows but to the blossoming of brushes and trees, especially the grapevines (Genesis 40:10; Sirach 50:8)...The vines are pruned or cut between January and March, before the new sap rises and before the time of the other signs enumerated in this verse...The turtledove mentioned in Song of Solomon 2:12 is a migratory bird (cf. Jeremiah 8:7)...it shows up in Israel about the middle of April (at the end of the rainy season). Its amorous cooing seems to provide the beat for the song of Song of Solomon 2:12b. Song of Solomon 2:12 seeks to motivate the call to go...primarily by calling attention to the favorable time. (Keel, The Song of Songs (Continental Commentary Series), 101)

Tommy Nelson (b. 1950) commends:

What a wonderful picture of courtship! Like springtime, their relationship had blossomed fully...Solomon was calling to the woman to be with him exclusively. He wanted to be alone with her, and in the “secret places” he wanted to communicate with her, get to know her, and deepen a relationship with her. He was committing to discover all he could about her. (Nelson, The Book of Romance: What Solomon Says About Love, Sex, and Intimacy, 67)

Not surprisingly, the man paints a highly idealized picture of springtime, accentuating its many benefits. Dianne Bergant (b. 1936) explains:

All of these images are somehow associated with springtime, the time when nature awakens to new life...Winter, the rainy season, is over and nature is coming alive anew. This is the time of the profusion of vibrant wildflowers that cover the earth like a mutlicolored carpet. It is the time of the sound of the migratory turtledove recently returned from its winter haven. It is the time when the flow of sap through the fig trees begins the ripening of its fruits. It is the time of the regeneration of vines as they bring forth blossoms and give forth fragrance. These are the harbingers of springtime. They are also all fitting images of innocent love. This is the time to “arise” from the old and “come away” to the new. The delicacy of new life and the promise that it extends, the enchantment with which spring invades the senses, both evoke and mirror the splendor of the passion of these lovers. Calling the woman into springtime is really calling her into love. (Bergant, The Song of Songs (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 30)

J. Cheryl Exum (b. 1946) notes that the man skillfully appeals to all of his lover’s senses:

The invitation to share the delights of spring derives its persuasive power from its appeal to the senses: blossoms are seen, the turtledove’s cooing is heard, the budding vines fill the air with fragrance. There is even a hint of taste in the mention of ripening figs and grape vines. The repeated references to “the land,” “our land,” in Song of Solomon 2:12 suggest a widening of perspective, with the entire countryside participating in the total sensory picture. (Exum, Song of Songs (Old Testament Library), 127)

Ariel Bloch (b. 1933) and Chana Bloch (b. 1940) see parallels between the season and the lovers themselves:

The poem is set in early spring, with its intimations of ripening. The rains of the winter season have just ended, the vines are in blossom, the air is alive with scents and birdsong. Since the poem speaks through metaphor, this setting reveals something essential about the lovers, who live in harmony with the natural world. The images of spring reflect their youth, and the innocent freshness of their passion. (Bloch and Bloch, The Song of Songs: A New Translation, 3)

Robert W. Jenson (b. 1930) reminds that the man’s feelings may be effecting the man’s perception of his environment:

Why the lover’s long praise of spring’s beauty? It is not itself metaphor, nor does it seem to carry any erotic double meaning; it is straightforward praise of spring’s empirical, if here perhaps somewhat exaggerated, delights. Therewith the poem brings to the surface an underlying motif of the Song’s general construal of reality: whenever in the Song the lovers step outdoors or imagine themselves there, they enter at Eden, a nature furnished only with beautiful, fruitful, and sweet-smelling flora and populated by fauna far from red in tooth in claw, where even rainy weather appears only as something just past that brought the flowers. (Jenson, Song of Songs (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 34)

Like more contemporary love songs, the man has spring when his lover is close. When it is cold outside, he has the month of may (“My Girl”). Birds suddenly appear every time she is near (“Close to You”).

As such, the woman still has concerns. Iain Provan (b. 1957) documents:

The man has suggested to her that her present location is a limiting one defined by fear, and he has spoken of the outside world only in glowing terms, designed to make it attractive to her. Her response is to remind him, however, that the outside world is in fact a dangerous place for herself and the other women (the “us” of Song of Solomon 2:15). Their reluctance to come outside is justified. (Provan, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (The NIV Application Commentary), 288)

What love songs can you think of that evoke springtime imagery? Why is spring associated with love? How important is timing to a relationship? In other ventures? Have you ever interpreted a change in season as a sign to make a change in your life? What is it time for you to do now?

Given the erotic nature of Song of Solomon, many have interpreted the book allegorically though spring still factors into the reading. Marvin R. Wilson (b. 1935) notes:

During the Passover festival the Song of Songs is read. Since this book alludes to the beauty of springtime (Song of Songs 2:11-13), the very season of Passover, the rabbis interpreted it as a picture of God’s love for his people Israel. (Wilson, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, 249)

The book’s spring setting reminds that there is always hope for rebirth. John Eldredge (b. 1960) asks:

What if nature is speaking to us? What if sunrise and sunset tell the tale every day, remembering Eden’s glory, prophesying Eden’s return? What if it shall all be restored? (Eldredge, Desire: The Journey We Must Take to Find the Life God Offers, 108)

Have you ever found hope due to a change in the weather? Is your personal winter ending? Do you believe that it will?

“The deep roots never doubt spring will come.” - Marty Rubin (1929-1994)

The Gardener Of Eden (John 20:15)

Who did Mary Magdalene think Jesus was when she first saw him after His resurrection? The gardener (John 20:15)

Though she does not play a prominent role through most of the gospel narrative, Mary Magdalene takes center stage after the crucifixion. She is the person who discovers the empty tomb (John 20:1). After relaying the (potentially) good news to the disciples (John 20:2), Mary remains outside the tomb weeping (John 20:11). Presumably, she interprets the absence of Jesus’ body as an insult added to injury.

After conversing with two angels who were in the tomb, Mary encounters the risen Jesus himself (John 20:12-18). She does not recognize him initially, presuming him to be the gardener of the garden tomb (John 20:15).

Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” (John 20:15 NASB)

Recognition comes not through sight (Matthew 5:8; Ephesians 1:18) as it is only after Jesus says her name that Mary recognizes him (John 20:16). As Jesus had professed earlier in the gospel, sheep know their shepherd’s voice when they hear it (John 10:4).

Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) reads the incident with an apologetic bent:

This is perhaps the earliest literary evidence of a Jewish response to the Christian story of the resurrection. While early Christians explained the tradition of an empty tomb by claiming that God had raised Jesus from the dead, early Christian documents report a Jewish response that the body has been stolen from the tomb by a gardener. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 528)

When she encounters Jesus, Mary is inconsolable and likely still in shock. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) comments, “Her conclusion that perhaps this man moved Jesus’ body since he happened to be the gardener indicates that she has not heard the man standing before her (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation (Bible Knowledge Series), 156).”

Mary, like many in mourning, is on a mission, staying busy by doing the distracting work of taking care of the deceased’s affairs. She assumes the highly unusual role of chief mourner and claims her right to Jesus’ body. Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) speculates, “Mary apparently supposes that there has been some objection to Jesus’ having been buried in this particular tomb and assures (the gardener) that she will assume the responsibility of finding another place to bury the body (Stallings, The Randall House Bible Commentary: The Gospel of John, 279).”

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) analyzes:

Perhaps, she told herself, he had seen something – indeed, perhaps he had been involved in the moving of the body himself. If Mary thought him to be the gardener, she may have wondered if he had been under orders from the owner to remove the body of this executed criminal from the new tomb where it had been hurriedly placed. That she should offer to make the arrangements to fetch the body and given it a proper burial suggests she was a woman of some wealth and standing (as Luke 8:2-3 attests). (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 641)

Mary’s interpretation is mundane - she mistakes Jesus for the gardener (kepouros). This is the only time this word appears in the New Testament. Counselor and gardener Catherine McCann defines:

The gardener could mean the owner of the garden or an overseer or caretaker—therefore someone who would have known who disturbed the tomb. Brown remarks that the word kepouros (“gardener”) is the only biblical reference using this term, yet it was not an uncommon word in secular papyri. (McCann, New Paths Toward the Sacred: Awakening the Awe Experience in Everyday Living, 152)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) rationalizes, “Presumably he looks less angelic than the other two individuals, so that she mistakes him for a gardener (recall John 19:41) (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 263).”

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) notes that gardener was the best guess available to Mary.

Apart from grave robbers or other mourners—neither of whom would have been likely visitors at this early morning hour—gardeners attending to the grounds where a tomb was located (cf. John 19:41) would have been the only people around. Mary’s guess indicates that at first blush the resurrected Jesus is indistinguishable from an ordinary person. (Clinton E. Arnold [b.1958], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts, 188)

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) justifies Mary’s blunder:

The confusion of Jesus with a gardener is logical, given that they are standing in a garden. The misidentification points to the degree to which Jesus’s appearance is unexpected. That Jesus has left his burial clothes in the tomb might provoke fanciful speculation that Jesus has borrowed the gardener’s clothes. Rembrandt depicts this possibility in his painting The Resurrected Lord Appears to Mary Magdalene (1651) [pictured]. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 269)

Some have seen Mary’s misconception as indicative of inadequate faith. Mark A. Matson (b.1951) critiques:

It is curious that, having seen and heard the angels in the tomb, she would still ask Jesus, thinking him to be a gardener, where the body has been moved. This question underscores her lack of comprehension and belief. (Matson, John (Interpretation Bible Studies),119)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) adds:

Her lack of spiritual perceptivity at this point could hardly be made clearer. On the other hand, it seems characteristic of first appearance stories that Jesus is not immediately recognized (cf. the Emmaus story in Luke 24). G.R. Beasley-Murray [1916-2000] has conjectured that the glorified Jesus made himself sensibly recognizable only to his disciples but that in his transfigured condition he would not have been distinguishable from other supernatural beings such as an angel. The problem with this suggestion is that Mary confuses Jesus with a gardener, but she certainly does not confuse him with the angels in the tomb. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 331)

As Witherington notes, not recognizing the post resurrected Jesus is not an uncommon phenomena (Luke 24:13-16). More than any deficiency in faith, Mary’s reaction accentuates the unexpectedness of the resurrection. She could not perceive Jesus because she had rejected the possibility of seeing him.

Are you looking for Jesus? Would you recognize him if you saw him? Have you ever not recognized a loved one because they were in an unexpected place? Why does Mary fail to recognize Jesus? Is her misidentification an evidence of a lack of faith? Is Mary completely wrong?

In a way, Mary is correct - she is encountering the gardener. In John 15:1-17, Jesus paints a famous picture of a vine meticulously trimmed by a gardener so that it might produce optimum fruit. Though the word for gardener (georgos) is different, the analogy begins with Jesus stating that the Father is the gardener of the vine (John 15:1).

The imagery may even bring the Biblical story full circle by alluding back to creation. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) explains:

Some interpreters believe that John is consciously sweeping up numerous biblical motifs that connect with the theme of “garden.” If so, it is no accident that in John 20:15, here in this garden, Mary misunderstands the identity of Jesus and thinks he is the gardener. Nicolas Wyatt [b.1941], after showing the historical evidence in Judaism that placed the Garden of Eden in the Holy Land, goes on to show how motifs from the Eden story reappear in numerous literatures of the period. If this imagery is at work (and here many would caution us), in this story we are viewing a woman in “Paradise” meeting the ruler of the Garden himself, Jesus. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 548)

Through his death and resurrection, Jesus plants the seed that will lead humanity to the new Eden.

Sandra M. Schneiders (b. 1936) adds:

The...scene, redolent of allusions to both the garden of the first creation (cf. Genesis 2:8-15 and Genesis 3:8-10) and the Song of Songs (especially Song of Solomon 3:1-4), brings the lover, Mary Magdalene, to the garden of the tomb searching for her Beloved and refusing comfort or enlightenment from anyone, even angels, who cannot tell her where he is...He is indeed the divine gardener inaugurating the New Creation, the Good Shepherd calling his own name, and the Spouse of the New Covenant rewarding the search of the anguished lover. (John R. Donahue [b. 1933], Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998],183)

Ravi Zacharias (b. 1946) concludes, “Yes, there is a Gardener...And, yes, the Gardener is the God revealed fully in Jesus Christ (Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, Extreme Edition).”

Given the same data as Mary, what conclusion would you have drawn? If Jesus were to cross your path, how would you recognize him?

“The best place to find God is in a garden. You can dig for him there.” - George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Pierced for Our Transgressions (John 19:34)

What did the soldiers do to the side of Jesus on the cross? Pierced it with a spear.

The gospel of John (and only the fourth gospel) records that governor Pontius Pilate ordered the legs of those being crucified, including Jesus, to be broken (John 19:31-37). This was one of the few blows involved in crucifixion that was not commanded in derision.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) explain:

Breaking the legs of a runaway slave or a fugitive was punishment; for a crucified person it was a favor, since it enabled the person to suffocate rather quickly. Here we are told that the soldiers found Jesus dead already, and therefore did not break his legs. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 272)

While the other two condemned men needed their legs broken to speed their demise, Jesus’ limbs were left in tact as he was found already dead (John 19:33). Instead, a soldier jabbed Jesus’ side with spear (John 19:34).

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. (John 19:34 NASB)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) relays:

Instead of breaking his legs, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear. Presumably, the spear thrust was to ensure that Jesus was dead, but the spear penetrated quite a away, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. (Kruse, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) , 371)

John sees the incident as corresponding to Old Testament passages in both Psalms (Psalm 34:20) and Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10). For the evangelist, this connection is further evidence for belief (John 19:35-37).

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) summarizes:

The piercing and the Witnesses (John 19:31-37) underline how Jesus’ postmortem treatment, particularly his pierced side (form which come flowing blood and water, attested by very trustworthy witnesses), remarkably fulfills both the words of ancient Scriptures and the very promises of Jesus himself (e.g., Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:20; Zechariah 12:10; and John 4:10, 6:53, 55; 7:37-39). (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1095)

Johannes Beutler (b. 1933) critiques, “In spite of considerable differences in wording, the looking upon the pierced side of Jesus is considered to be foretold by scripture, in this case Zechariah 12:10. (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946] and C. Clifton Black [b. 1955], Exploring the Gospel of John: in honor of D. Moody Smith [b.1931], 149).”

Leon Morris (1914-2006) adds that there is an allusion to Passover:

This appears to be a reference to the requirement that the bones of the Passover victim should not be broken (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12). It would seem that John means us to think that Jesus’ death was the real Passover sacrifice (cf. the similar view of Paul, I Corinthians 5:7). (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 686)

Perhaps more important than any prophetic fulfillment is the fact that the post-mortem spear thrust establishes that Jesus died. To have resurrection, one must demonstrate proof of death. Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) elucidates:

The unusual speed of his death is almost certainly related to the severe flogging he had previously received (John 19:1). So, instead of breaking his legs, one of the soldiers thrusts a spear into his side (John 19:34). In a world without modern medical techniques for determining the exact moment of death, this may have been the easiest way to ensure Jesus had no spark of life left in him as the authorities prepared to take his body off the cross...Commentators and physicians alike have debated the medical significance of the outflow of water and blood. What first-century readers would have recognized was John’s emphasis on the complete and genuine death of Jesus. (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 255)

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

This was sufficient answer to those forms of docetism current when he wrote which held that the Christ did not really die. The persistence of this view is reflected in the statement in the Qur’ān that ‘they did not kill him, neither did they crucify him; it only seemed to be so’. (Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, Notes, 376)

The blow generates a peculiar reaction - the excretion of both blood and water (John 19:34). Apologists point to this detail as the definitive biblical verse which demonstrates that Jesus did indeed die.

Rick Cornish (b. 1950) writes:

The release of “blood and water” as described by eyewitnesses (John 19:34) is exactly what medical science expects when a person dies under these conditions. Severe shock accelerated the heart rate leading to heart failure, depositing fluid in the membrane around the heart and lungs. So he was probably dead when the soldier speared Him in the side, piercing His rib cage, lung, and heart. If He was still alive, the spear thrust would have killed Him. (Cornish, 5 Minute Apologist: Maximum Truth in Minimum Time, 151)

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) explicates:

The verb enyxen (‘pierced’) could in itself suggest nothing more than a ‘stab’ to see if Jesus was alive, but the rest of the verse shows that there was significant penetration: the wound brought a sudden flow of blood and water. Medical experts disagree on what was pierced. The two most common theories are these: (a) The spear pierced Jesus’ heart , and the blood from the heart mingled with the fluid from the periocardial sac to produce the ‘flow of blood and water’. (b) By contrast, it has been argued that fluid from the pericardial sac could not so readily escape from the body by such a wound; it would fill up the chest cavity, filling the space around the lung and then oozing into the lung itself through the wound the spear made. In tests performed on cadavers, it has been shown that where a chest has been severely injured but without penetration, hemorrhagic fluid, up to two litres of it, gathers between the pleura lining the rib cage and the lining of the lung. This separates, the clearer serum at the top, the deep red layer at the bottom. If the chest cavity were then pierced at the bottom, both layers would flow out...However the medical experts work this out, there can be little doubt that the Evangelist is emphasizing Jesus’ death, his death as a man, his death beyond any shadow of doubt. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 623)

Jesus’ humanity is on full display as there is nothing less divine than death. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) writes:

One of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, a thrust doubtless aimed at Jesus’ heart to be sure of his death (Quintilian 35-100], Declamationes maiores 6.9, “and at once there came out blood and water” (John 19:34b). The reference to the discharge of blood and water would be heard by Mediterranean readers as a testimony to the real humanity of the crucified one. Several parallels confirm the point. First, the Iliad 5.340-41 says that from a goddess, wounded with a lance, “blood-water” alone issued forth instead of blood and water, because gods who neither eat bread nor drink wine have no blood. Second, Plutarch [45-120], Moralia 180e, has Alexander the Great [356-323 BCE] tell those who regarded him as a god, “This is blood, as you can seem and not blood-water, such as flows in the holy gods.” Third IV Maccabees 9:20 tells how, at the martyrdom of the eldest of the seven brothers, not only blood but also blood-water flowed from his body onto the instrument of torture. His was a truly human death. Moreover, it is significant that Irenaeus [130-202] (Against Heresies 3.22.2) interprets the flow of blood and water from Jesus’ side, along with his hunger and thirst and physical fatigue, as a sign of his humanity. (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, 254)

How important is it to you that Jesus was fully human? Why do you think the evangelist went to such great lengths to demonstrate that Jesus actually died? Do the connections between the piercing of Jesus and the Old Testament bolster your faith? Is there any symbolic significance to the event?

Numerous theories have been extended regarding the symbolic significance of the combination of blood and water that oozes from Jesus (John 19:34).

Urban C. Von Wahlde (b. 1941) connects the water to the “living water” that Jesus offers earlier in the gospel (John 7:37-39):

For the author of John 19:34, the fact that the blood of Jesus issued forth in addition to water is very important. Could it be that John 19 is a complement and a development of the thought of John 7:37-39? If the Fourth Gospel is more interested in theology than in narrative niceties, then we have an explanation. (Tom Thatcher [b. 1967], What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies, 348)

Robert Kysar (b. 1934) responds:

The search for the symbolic meaning of the two liquids has not been...easy. The primary question is whether or not the two are symbolic of the sacraments, and that seems clearly not to be the case. Water functions elsewhere in this gospel to symbolize the Spirit (e.g., John 7:39) and the revelation of God (e.g. Revelation 4:10ff.), While that might be the sense of water here, this verse is not intended as a fulfillment of John 7:39)...The blood might stand for the benefits of Jesus’ death flowing out from the cross, chief among them the gift of the Spirit. I John 5:6-8 seems to be an interpretation of this passage, but that does not mean that the sense of the verse in the epistle is necessarily the sense the evangelist had in mind. All in all two observations are called for: (1) The primary point to be established by this verse is the reality of Jesus’ death...(2) John may also have wanted to hint at the outpouring of the benefits of the crucifixion for the believer. (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 291-292)

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) goes back further in time and sees a link to the Passover:

One of the soldiers with his lance pierced the side, and to his surprise, and surely to that of the first audience, out came a flow of blood and water (John 19:34). This issue of fluid invites investigation of its surplus of symbolic meaning and ironic significance. The soldier, who seems to imitate the humiliation of a defeated combative enemy is showered with life-giving elements. Mary Coloe points out that this is temple imagery. Jesus dies at the same time as the blood from the Passover lamb flows from the temple. The water signifies that Jesus is the eschatalogical temple from which the water of the spirit of life flows. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 254)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) also sees an association with Passover:

Just as with the many other events on this day, John no doubt sees symbolism that goes beyond the surface meaning of piercing. Most evangelicals are reluctant to see sacramental symbolism here (such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the images of water and blood) although this has been a common view from the earliest centuries. More promising is the view that sees Passover symbolism at work. John may be making the point that the crucified Jesus qualifies as a Passover victim. He notes, for instance, that Jesus’ legs are not broken, likely because it was illegal for any Passover sacrifice to have broken bones. The lamb must be a perfect sacrifice. In case we miss this subtle point, John even alludes to the Passover requirement in Exodus 12:46 at the end of the paragraph, “Not one of his bones will be broken” (John 19:36; see also Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20). (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 506)

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) supplements:

It is difficult to know...what to make of the “water and blood” of the crucifixion of Jesus (John 19:34; cf. I John5:6-9), but it is safe to think that the language functions as either an antic-docetic notation or a symbol for purification. Along similar lines, it is clear that John finds it important that Jesus dies at the same time as do the Pesah victims at the temple (John 18:29, 39, 19:14), but it is not altogether clear what kind of atonement theology he finds in such a connection. If Jesus is the Passover victim, ingested at some personal level for his followers, it would mean he is the center of the celebration and that in which they participate in order to memorialize the redemption. It would also mean he would be the protector from the wrath of the slaying angel of YHWH. (McKnight, Jesus And His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, And Atonement Theory, 369)

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) posits that as his blood and water spill, Jesus’ very nature is on display:

Perhaps “blood and water”...points to Jesus’ two natures, human and divine. The parallel I John 5:6-8 refers to spirit, water, and blood; Jesus gave up his spirit when he died (John 19:30), leaving behind blood and water. (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 552)

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) concludes:

Of course, at this moment of all moments, none of this is simply told for the sake of historical detail, vital though that is (the Word really did become flesh, not a phantom!). John has left us in no doubt that all these details, too, though from one point of view ‘accidental’ (nobody could have guessed what the soldiers might do next), were all to be seen as heaven-sent signs of what it all meant. We only have to think back through the gospel, to all the occasions where water and blood are mentioned, to realize that again and again they point to Jesus as the source of life, cleansing and purification. All these themes come together at this moment. (Wright, John for Everyone: Chapters 11-21, 135)

Is there symbolic significance to the blood and water which emanates from Jesus? What does the crucifixion mean to you?

“But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” - Isaiah 53:5 NASB

Choosing The Wrong Jesus (Mark 15:15)

Who was released in order for Jesus to be crucified? Barabbas.

All four gospels record that a policy existed by which a prisoner was released at Passover (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; Luke 23:7; John 18:39). At Jesus’ hearing before governor Pontius Pilate, this Passover amnesty gives the spectators a presumably unbalanced choice of whose life to spare - Jesus or a prisoner named Barabbas (Matthew 27:17; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). Matthew records that the alternative was posed by Pilate (Matthew 27:17), Mark attributes it to the priests (Mark 15:11) and John to the mob (John 18:40). Pilate assumes that the crowd will prefer the popular (albeit controversial) young preacher, Jesus, to the bloodthirsty killer. Instead, the crowd chooses the insurrectionist and Jesus is sent to be crucified (Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:17-19; John 18:39-40).

Though Barabbas does not speak in the Bible, all four gospels name him (Matthew 27:16, 17, 20, 21, 26; Mark 15:7, 11, 15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). While the descriptions of him vary, the gospels agree that Barabbas deserves to be on trial. Matthew calls him a “notorious prisoner” (Matthew 27:16 NASB). Mark states that he had “committed murder in the insurrection” (Mark 15:7 NASB). John notes that Barabbas was a “robber” (John 18:40). In one of his first sermons, Peter calls him a murderer (Acts 3:14). Barabbas is obviously a known commodity, but exactly who he is cannot be determined as the brief New Testament references do not provide the specifics of his crimes and he is not mentioned outside of the Bible.

John Shelby Spong (b. 1931) acknowledges:

Mystery surrounds Barabbas, who is never mentioned either before this moment or after. He is defined in Mark as one who “committed murder during the insurrection” (Mark 15:7). His evils seems to increase as the later gospels pick up his story. He is “notorious” in Matthew (Matthew 27:16), a bandit in John (John 18:40, NRSV). (Spong, Jesus for the Non-Religious, 168)

The Greek provides little help in identifying his crimes. Allen Black (b. 1951) explains:

Barabbas...was one of several men imprisoned for committing murder in a riot. The nouns which the NIV translates “insurrectionists” and “uprising” [Mark 15:7] are cognate nouns (στασιαστής, stasiastes and στάσις, stasis) which could refer to a range of activities from general rioting to a major insurrection. (Black, Mark (The College Press NIV Commentary), 268)

William L. Lane (1931-1999) adds:

The leader of this revolt seems to have been a popular hero, and may have been a leading Zealot, but little is known of him or his deeds...The fact that Barabbas is introduced prior to the reference to the petitioners in Mark 15:8 suggests that the latter were supporters of the insurgent who came to the forum specifically to ask for his release. (Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 554)

It has been assumed that Barabbas was a prominent figure in a movement resisting the Roman empire. It has even been posited that he belonged to the Sicarii (literally “dagger men”), a group of radical Jewish patriots who pledged to murder Roman rulers and their collaborators whenever possible. Barabbas’ supporters would have perceived him to be a freedom fighter.

Robert H. Gundy (b. 1932) suspects that knowing the specifics of Barabbas’ crimes would only distract from the narrative:

The placement of ἐν τη στάσει, “in the insurrection,” and φόνον, “murder,” before the verb calls attention to the criminality of Barabbas and his fellow prisoners. Against this foil Jesus’ innocence stands out in bold relief: Barabbas deserves to be bound and crucified; Jesus does not. Mark avoids obscuring this apologetic contrast with details concerning the insurrection. (Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 926)

As the text leaves his sins to the imagination, Barabbas becomes an abstract but more relatable figure - he is the one who deserves the punishment that Jesus receives.

The name Barabbas is also generic, meaning, “son of a father.” John R. Donahue (b. 1933) dissects:

The proper name here consists of two Aramaic elements: bar meaning “son” and ’abba’ meaning “father.” The derivation from Bar-Rabban (“son of the master”) is less likely. There were rabbis known as “Bar-Abba,” and the practice of using bar plus the father’s name is witnessed in the cases of Simon bar Jona (for Peter; see Matthew 16:17) and Simeon Bar Kokhba (or Kosiba) around 132-135 C.E. Some manuscripts supply Barabbas with the first name “Jesus” in Matthew 27:16. Since one would expect him to have a first name and since it is unlikely that early Christians would have created the name “Jesus” for him there may well be a historical basis for this tradition. In either case the choice presented to the crowd—between Jesus of Nazareth (the real “Son of the Father”) and (Jesus) Barabbas—is rich in irony and in theological significance. (Donahue, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina), 432)

Gerrit Vos (1894-1968) declares, “Everyone in the world is in this Barabbas. The man born of a human father.”

As noted, Barabbas’ given name may have been Jesus. The New English Bible even translates his name as such, “Jesus Bar-Abbas” (Matthew 27:16, NEB).

Joel Marcus (b. 1951) analyzes:

Some texts of Matthew 27:16-17, mostly of a Caesarean type... read “Jesus Barabbas” rather than “Barabbas,” and Origen [184-253]acknowledges that some of the manuscripts known to him attest this reading (Commentary on Matthew 121 [on Matthew 27:16-18]). Many scholars think that “Jesus Barabbas” was the original reading in Matthew and that the forename was later suppressed by reverential scribes who felt, as Origen did, that no sinner should bear the name of Jesus...This theory is made more plausible by the observation that the forename has been erased from several manuscripts (see F. Crawford Burkitt [1864-1935], Evangelion da-Mepharreshe 2.277)...Some exegetes...even suggest that “Jesus Barabbas” may have been the original reading in Mark, since “the one called Barabbas” is awkward, and elsewhere ho legomenos is usually preceded by a personal name and followed by a descriptive title or nickname (Matthew 1:16, 4:18, 10:2, 27:17, 22; John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2; Colossians 4:11). There are instances, however, in which ho legomenos is not preceded by the personal name (Matthew 26:3, 14; Luke 22:47; John 4:25, 9:11, 19:17), and awkward expressions are common in Mark. (Marcus, Mark 8-16 (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 1028)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) adds:

At Mark 15:7 we are introduced to Barabbas, whose name according to a textual variant at Matthew 27:16 was Jesus Barabbas. This, in turn, has led to the suggestion that Pilate misheard the crowd when they were shouting for the release of Jesus Barabbas, thinking they were asking for Jesus of Nazareth. But there is no clear evidence for such a conclusion here, and most of the earliest and best manuscripts do not have the name Jesus appended to Barabbas.(Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 391)

When Barabbas hears his name called, he likely thinks it is to be executed. Much to Barabbas’ surprise and Pilate’s chagrin, the crowd chooses to spare Barabbas instead of Jesus. While the gospels vary on who is most responsible for suggesting Barabbas as an alternative, they are unified in recounting the crowd’s unified decision to release the insurrectionist (Matthew 27:21; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). The people not only choose Barabbas, but reject Jesus, demanding his death (Matthew 27:22,23; Mark 15:13; Luke 23:21; John 19:15). The latter decision is more difficult to understand.

Mary Healy (b. 1964) questions:

Why would the crowd demand such a horrible fate for their fellow Jew? Mark does not explain, and leaves it as a question for the reader to contemplate. Perhaps the nationalists in the crowd regard Jesus a threat to the release of their man, Barabbas. Perhaps they regard the kingdom of God that he preached (Mark 1:14-15) as a futile pie-in-the-sky religious quest when what was really needed was violent, military action to liberate Israel. It is also possible that most people in the crowd did not know who Jesus was and were simply willing to go along with the chief priests’ agitation. In either case, they demonstrate chilling indifference to the torments to which they expose him. (Healy, The Gospel of Mark, (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 309)

There is a tragic irony in their shocking selection. Jesus is targeted because of his popularity and growing influence yet the crowds who are responsible for his influence are also behind his execution.

Pilate did not account for an extreme form of peer pressure, mob psychology. The crowd is incited by it religious leaders (Matthew 27:20; Mark 15:11). Lamar Williamson, Jr. (b. 1926) examines:

The explicit motivation..is that “the chief priests stirred up the crowd.” The mob is essentially mindless and subject to manipulation. For whatever motives, twice they reject Jesus as king (Mark 15:9, 12), and twice, by acclamation they call for his death: “Crucify him” (Mark 15:13-14). (Williamson, Mark (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 271)

The crowd is stirred into a frenzy, willing to believe the worst about the best regardless of the facts. Passion overrides judgment. Psychology has demonstrated that it takes only a handful of people positioned in strategic places to start a riot.

Leslie J. Francis (b. 1947) determines:

Here is a narrative about crowd psychology. Consider how little responsibility each individual in the crowd took for the release of Barabbas, how little responsibility each individual in the crowd took for the crucifixion of Jesus, how the moral autonomy of the individual is eroded by the power of the crowd. (Francis, Personality Type and Scripture: Exploring Mark’s Gospel, 145)

Barabbas became the popular choice and as is often the case, the popular choice was wrong.

When have you made a decision simply to follow the crowd? Why do the spectators choose Barabbas? When have you seen a popular choice proven wrong? Have you ever seen religious officials lead their followers astray? Is Barabbas’ inclusion in each gospel evidence of substitutionary atonement? Compare and contrast Jesus and Barabbas.

The two figures are intended to be contrasted. Not only are Jesus’ and Barabbas’ names similar, but they find themselves in very similar positions. Both wish to save their people, Barabbas from Rome; Jesus from sin and death.

Theodore W. Jennings (b. 1942) recognizes:

Jesus and Barabbas belong together in some odd way...It really doesn’t matter how far we seek to distinguish the strategy of Jesus from that of Barabbas. Jesus himself does not condemn Barabbas, even if he does seem to embody a different way of confronting the imperial authorities. Instead, he dies in his place. If Jesus’ death may be literally said to be a ransom for another, that other is first of all none other than Barabbas, the terrorist, the assassin. (Jennings, Transforming Atonement: A Political Theology of the Cross, 32)

M. Eugene Boring (b. 1935) adds:

Many Gentile Christians could be expected to see “Barabbas” as an ironic counterpart to Jesus, the true Son of the Father. The parallel and contrast may go further: Barabbas has already been convicted of insurrection and sentenced to death, but will escape; Jesus is falsely accused of insurrection and will die in Barabbas’ place, although he is innocent and has not been convicted or sentenced. During the whole period from the Roman takeover of Palestine (63 BCE) to the actual revolt in 66 CE, the only people crucified in Palestine were those convicted of being revolutionaries and their followers. It is important for Mark and his readers to distinguish Jesus from revolutionaries such as Barabbas. The point will again be made at the cross, where those crucified as actual revolutionaries will dissociate themselves from Jesus (Mark 15:32). (Boring, Mark: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 420-21)

Barabbas serves as a stark reminder of the grim reality of the situation - he should have been the one to die. Gary W. Charles (b. 1954) concludes:

Barabbas...is chiefly a Markan foil to advance the story by emphasizing the dramatic injustice being done to Jesus. The tragic irony is advanced when the same crowd that had shouted “Hosanna” at the entrance to Jerusalem (Mark 11:9) is now manipulated by the chief priests to shout “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:14). Ironically, Jesus, the one who can save lives (Hosanna means “Save now” in Hebrew) is rejected in favor of one who has taken life. (Brian K. Blount [b. 1955] and Charles, Preaching Mark in Two Voices, 235)

The crowd’s choice is also indicative of a greater ideology. Barabbas represents the world’s way of doing things while Jesus presents a radical alternative. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) exclaims:

The crowd preferred Jesus Bar-Abbas to Jesus Bar-Joseph, the real son of the Father!...Why? Because Barabbas was a grotesque form of the Messiah Israel wanted! He was a leading Zealot, a political activist who had taken to the bandit trail. He was a man of action who would even murder to reach his own ends (cf. Acts 3:14; Matthew 27:16; Luke 23:19; John 18:40). In the twisted thinking of some, he was a patriot. His vitality and elan appealed to the mob. Jesus, however, had disappointed them with his inaction. The people chose lawlessness instead of righteousness, violence instead of love, war instead of peace. The world is still the same. (Hughes, Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, Volume Two (Preaching the Word), 193)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) laments:

The choice of Barabbas represents the human preference for the one who represents our narrow personal hopes—in this particular case, a perverted nationalism. He appeals to our basic instinct to protect our interests, with violence if necessary. In contemporary culture, we have been indoctrinated to prefer the violent answer over the peaceful one...Our heroes become the Barbbases of the world, who take matters into their own hands and dispatch the enemy with brute force or clever trickery. If the vote came today, then, Barabbas would likely win again, hands down. (Garland, Mark (The NIV Application Commentary), 583)

The contrast between Jesus and Barabbas is illustrated in the work of British artist George Tinworth (1843-1913). In 1882, Tinworth produced a terra cotta relief called “The Release of Barabbas” (pictured). There is perfect symmetry between the scene’s three principal figures - Barabbas, Pilate and Jesus. Pilate occupies the painting’s center, situated between a bound solemn Jesus and Barabbas whose hands are free. Inscribed beneath Barabbas are the words, “The World’s Choice” while the marker beneath Jesus reads, “The Good Shepherd” (John 10:11). Tinworth was correct. The world tends to choose poorly, continually favoring Barabbas over Jesus.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) resolves:

The story of Barabbas invites us to see Jesus’ crucifixion in terms of a stark personal exchange. Barabbas deserves to die; Jesus dies instead, and he goes free. Barabbas was the archetypical Jewish rebel: quite probably what we today would call a fanatical right-wing zealot, determined to stop at nothing to bring in a version of God’s kingdom which consisted of defeating Roman power by Roman means – in other words, repaying pagan violence with holy violence. No doubt many Christians in Mark’s community, and others who would read his book, had at one stage at least flirted with such revolutionary movements. Reading the story of the guilty man freed and the innocent man crucified, it would not be hard for them to identify with Barabbas, and to view the rest of the story with the awestruck gaze of people who think, ‘There but for God’s grace go I.’ (Wright, Mark for Everyone, 209)

Who will you choose, Jesus or Barabbas? What do you think became of Barababas, a man who was lived because Jesus died? How has this same phenomenon affected you?

“Pilate told the people that they could spare the life of either a murderer named Barabbas or Jesus of Nazareth, and they chose Barabbas. Given the same choice, Jesus, of course, would have chosen to spare Barabbas too.” - Frederick Buechner (b. 1926), Peculiar Treasures: A Biblical Who’s Who, p. 15

The Name “Christian” (Acts 11:26)

In what city were the believers first called Christians? Antioch (Acts 11:26)

In the nascent years of the Christian movement, the early church was seen simply as a rebellious offshoot branch of Judaism. As such, the sect was not initially associated with the word “Christian”. In fact, the word “Christianity” is not found in the Bible and “Christian” appears only sparsely.

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) reminds:

We use that term so commonly we think it must be scattered all across the New Testament, but it appears only three times—Acts 11:26, 26:28; I Peter 4:16...Christians was an outside nickname, possibly given in derision. It means “Christ followers” or “people of Christ’s party.” (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary ), 180)

Jesus’ followers were known by many names and “Christian” was hardly the first. From the book of Acts, Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) catalogs:

Up to this point the followers of Jesus have been called “saints” (Acts 9:13, 32, 41), “disciples” (Acts 6:2, 7, 9:1, 10, 26, 36), “believers” (Acts 4:32, 5:4, 10:45), “the church/assembly” (Acts 2:47, 5:11, 8:1, 3, 9:31, 11:22, 26), “the brothers” (Acts 1:15, 10:23, 11:1). Now outsiders give the disciples a new name: Christianoi. (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 104)

The New Testament records that the name Christian was derived in Antioch.

and when he [Barnabas] had found him [Saul], he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11:26 NASB)

There are two cities known as Antioch in the book of Acts, Syrian Antioch (Acts 11:19-30, 14:1-28) and Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-52). The moniker “Christian” originated with the former.

Syrian Antioch was a leading city in the Roman world at the time. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) details:

Antioch, called by Josephus [37-100] “third among the cities of the Roman world” after Rome and Alexandria (War 3.29), was of great strategic importance to early Christianity. It was to be the first major cosmopolitan city outside Israel where Christianity clearly established itself as a force with which to be reckoned. Located on the Orontes, some eighteen miles upstream from its seaport on the Mediterranean (Seleucia, Pieria), Antioch was a great commercial center and near an important religious center connected with Artemis and Apollo (Daphne). It was the Roman provincial capital for Syria, and by the middle of the first century had an estimated population of a half-million people. On its coins Antioch called itself “Antioch, metropolis, sacred, and inviolable, and autonomous, and sovereign, and capital of the East.” It had come a long way since its founding by Seleucus I about 300 B.C., who named it after his father Antiochus...Jews had played a part in the city from its earliest days, and there was a considerable and well-established Jewish community in Antioch in the middle of the first century. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 366-267)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) specifies that:

Antioch was a cosmopolitan city, where Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian rubbed shoulders, where Mediterranean civilization met the Syrian desert; racial and religious differences which loomed so large in Judaea seemed much less important here. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 228)

Though the name’s origin is registered, its etymology is not. Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) acknowledges, “Luke doesn’t tell how this name was pinned on the disciples, whether by way of ridicule, for example. So he lets drop this bit of information either as a historical note or as an indication of popular recognition of the disciples’ attachment to Jesus as the Christ (Gundry, Commentary on Acts).”

The interpreter cannot even be certain when the name was given. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) reminds:

It is doubtful whether the name originated during the time when Saul and Barnabas worked together in Antioch – Luke does not quite say that it did. It was probably used in Pompeii between the earthquake of AD 62 and the destruction of the town in AD 79. (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 175)

Scholars have developed some hypotheses as to how the name developed. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) relays:

The verb were called implies in all probability that ‘Christian’ was a nickname given by the populace of Antioch, and thus ‘Christ’ could well have been understood as a proper name by them, even if at this stage the Christians themselves still used it as a title; it was not long, however, before the title became increasingly more like a name for Jesus. It is likely that the name contained an element of ridicule (cf. Acts 26:28; I Peter 4:16, its only other New Testament uses). The Christians preferred to use other names for themselves, such as ‘disciples’. ‘saints’ and ‘brothers’. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 203)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds:

The term christianoi...is obviously based on the title christos/chrestos = Messiah. If compared to a similarly formed designation like hērōdianoi (Mark 3:6, 12:13), it appears to mean a follower of someone, or a member of a movement. The translation “Messianist” would be appropriate in English. The other New Testament occurrences are placed in the mouths of outsiders: King Agrippa (Acts 26:28), and opponents (I Peter 4:16). It appears to have originated, therefore, as a somewhat slighting designation given not by the “believers” themselves but by hostile observers (see also Tacitus, Annals 15:44). The contemporary example of the name “Moonies” given to the members of the Unification Church (based on the name of the founder, Sun Yung Moon) is instructive. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 204-205)

There was precedent for an opprobrious name developing in Antioch. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) recounts:

Ancient Antioch was famous for its humor, especially the coining of jesting nicknames. When an organized brigade of chanting devotees of Nero led crowds in adulation, his band of imperial cheerleaders with their ludicrous homage was quickly dubbed Augustiani. And earlier, when the devotees of the one called Christ came to public attention, they were named Christianoi, partisans of Christ (Acts 11:26). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 175)

Many a truth is said in jest and even if it was intended to mock, the epithet is fitting. Though Christians in the Bible do not use the name, it obviously stuck and likely did so at an early date.

Paul Trebilco (b. 1958) notes:

Luke could well be indicating more widespread use of the term...Acts 11:26 suggests that Luke can presume his readers know the term. He does not need to explain it in any way, but can simply indicate this indication of its origin. His use of πρὡτως [“first”]also suggests the readers are to recall other times when they have heard the term, and they know of its ongoing use. At the very least, these points suggest that when Luke writes, the term was quite widely known both by outsiders (such as Agrippa) and by ‘Christians’ in a range of places. (Trebilco, Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament, 282)

John J. Pilch (b. 1936) observes:

Only outsiders use the word “Christian” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Peter 4:16-17) in mocking or pejorative fashion. Historically the word is most appropriately used after the time of Constantine (around A.D. 300). Prior to that time, the word is anachronistic. From this point of view, there are no “Christians” in the New Testament. How can one interpret or explain this statement? (Pilch, Visions and Healing in the Acts of the Apostles: How the Early Believers Experienced God , 150-151)

As Christ is a title and Jesus is a name, why were the early followers called Christians instead of Jesusians? What would you have called Jesus’ followers? Would you rather a group be named by insiders or outsiders? What do outsiders call your church? What other common names were originally intended to be disparaging? Is there significance to the fact that the name originated in Antioch?

James S. Jeffers (b. 1956) speculates:

The followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” at Antioch according to Acts 11:26. This is probably because believers in Antioch, for the first time, stood out enough from Jews to be nicknamed “Christus-people” by the local pagans. (Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity, 288)

Mark DeYmaz (b. 1961) and Harry Li (b. 1961) assert that it is fitting that the Christian name emerged in Antioch:

Jews loved Gentiles, Gentiles loved Jews, and they were all worshiping God together as one in the local church at Antioch...Its pastoral leadership team included two men from Africa, one from the Mediterranean, one from Asia Minor, and one from the Middle East (Acts 4:36; 9:11; 13:1), providing the church with a visible witness and a model of unity at the highest level. And it was the church at Antioch, and not the church in Jerusalem that first sent missionaries to the world. With these things in mind, it’s not coincidental that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). For there Christ was clearly recognized in the midst of unity, just as he had said he would be (John 17:23). (DeYmaz and Lee, Ethnic Blends: Mixing Diversity into Your Local Church (Leadership Network Innovation Series), 42)

Bruce Milne (b. 1940) concurs:

It is...highly significant that it was here that the name “Christian” began to be applied to the followers of Jesus (Acts 11:26)—a further critical indication of their sheer “newness,” but a newness, be it noted, expressed not least in the diversity of their community. The citizens of Antioch could find no serviceable term to refer to them, either within Judaism or in any other Gentile religious tradition. It was a new thing and required a new name, but one which identified it with its primary focus—the Lord Jesus Christ—and with its most obvious feature, its welcoming of every race and every type—hence “Christ-ones,” Christians. Is it too much to claim that we truly justify our right to the name Christian only when we practice diversity in unity under Christ? (Milne, Dynamic Diversity: Bridging Class, Age, Race and Gender in the Church, 46-47)

Where, if ever, were you first called “Christian”? Do Christians still stand out today? Should they? What does it mean to be a “Christian”?

“The very word ‘Christianity’ is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), The Anti-Christ, p. 111