Hezekiah’s Reprieve (II Kings 20:6)

Whose life was lengthened by fifteen years because he prayed? King Hezekiah (II Kings 20:6)

As his nation was under siege from Assyria, Hezekiah, king of Judah, became mortally ill (II Kings 20:1-11; II Chronicles 32:24-26; Isaiah 38:1-8). The prophet Isaiah had the unenviable task of informing the king that he must prepare to die - “set your house in order (II Kings 20:2; Isaiah 38:1 NASB).” The prophet’s pronouncement seemingly left no hope for the king. Hezekiah responded as he done previously, with prayer, protesting his allegiance to God (II Kings 20:3; Isaiah 38:2). Though he did not explicitly pray for an extended life, Hezekiah implicitly refused to accept the prophet’s verdict. God answered swiftly and definitively as before Isaiah had even left the premises, he returned and announced that God had promised to extend Hezekiah’s life by fifteen years and would also defend Jerusalem (II Kings 20:4-6; Isaiah 38:4-6). In conjunction with the king’s recovery, the prophet laid a cake of figs on the king’s boil (II Kings 20:7; Isaiah 38:21).

The specific nature of Hezekiah’s illness is never revealed aside from the presence of the boil or inflammation (Sh@chiyn, II Kings 20:7; Isaiah 38:21). Though it would be labeled folk medicine today and is uncharacteristic of Isaiah’s ministry, the application of figgy pudding was not an uncommon treatment in the ancient world.

Hezekiah handled his bad news with prayer. This was his practice (II Kings 19:14-19, 20:2; II Chronicles 30:18-19, 32:24; Isaiah 37:14-20, 38:2-3). Likewise, we are advised to pray habitually (Luke 18:1, 21:36; Ephesians 6:18) as God cares (I Peter 5:7). As such, can we assume that it is God’s desire to heal unless we have heard otherwise?

If you received a death sentence, what would you do to “set your house in order”? What would your prayer be were you given Hezekiah’s prognosis? Does Hezekiah’s prayer change God’s plans? Why is the folk medicine incorporated into Hezekiah’s recovery?

Given that the death sentence is repealed and the only variable that has changed is Hezekiah’s prayer, it would appear that something happened during his prayer that reversed his fortune. Hezekiah’s prayer appealed to his own good record:

“Remember now, O LORD, I beseech You, how I have walked before You in truth and with a whole heart and have done what is good in Your sight.” (II Kings 20:3 NASB)

After praying, Hezekiah wept bitterly, indicating sincerity (II Kings 20:3; Isaiah 38:3). Hezekiah’s boasts were not mere arrogance, they were true. Though he was the son of the wicked king Ahaz (II Kings 16:20, 18:1; I Chronicles 3:13; II Chronicles 28:27), Hezekiah had done “right in the sight of the LORD” (II Kings 18:3 NASB), “trusted in the LORD” (II Kings 18:5 NASB) and “clung to the LORD” (II Kings 18:6 NASB). Hezekiah had a good track record with God.

Hezekiah’s illness is a type story, a recurring tale (Robert L. Cohn [b. 1947], 2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 140). It marks the fourth time in Kings that an ill king was given a prophetic oracle regarding his fate as Jeroboam (I Kings 14:1-18), Ahaziah (II Kings 1:1-16) and Ben-hadad (II Kings 8:7-15) endured similar trials. In each of these instances, a king inquired of a prophet about an illness and received a death sentence in response. Hezekiah’s predicament diverges from type as in his case instead of the king seeking the prophet, the prophet sought the king and no intermediaries were necessary. Hezekiah is given equal footing with the prophet. The bad kings’ death sentences held while the good king reversed the oracle.

In both of these analyses, Hezekiah’s own righteousness accounts for God’s favorable response. Jesus affirmed that rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous alike (Matthew 5:45) and that illness is not necessarily an indicator of sin (John 9:2-3). Many righteous people with terminal illnesses pray today and receive no such reprieve.

Why is Hezekiah’s prayer effective when so many similar prayers are not? Was Hezekiah’s prayer answered due to his own righteousness?

After his recovery, Hezekiah wrote:

Lo, for my own welfare I had great bitterness;
It is You who has kept my soul from the pit of nothingness,
For You have cast all my sins behind Your back. (Isaiah 38:17 NASB)

Hezekiah did not see God’s mercy as a response to his worthiness.

The fact that the promise of Hezekiah’s extended life correlated with the guarantee of peace despite the Assyrian threat (II Kings 20:6; Isaiah 38:6) may indicate that Hezekiah’s prayer was answered not just for his benefit alone. Hezekiah’s illness affected the state. Some have noted that at the time of his affliction, Hezekiah had yet to produce an heir as his son Manasseh, who succeeded him, was born three years after this sickness (II Kings 21:1; II Chronicles 33:1). Some have also seen a parallel between Hezekiah and his nation as both were facing death and received extended life through repentance. Both would eventually die but as Hezekiah would not die to his current illness, Judah would also not perish at the hands of its contemporary oppressor (but rather the Babylonians).

The Bible does not record why Hezekiah’s prayer was effective, only that his life span was extended by fifteen years. He also received more than he asked for as God also gave his nation clemency.

What purpose did Hezekiah’s illness serve? Who benefitted from Hezekiah’s extended life? Have you ever known someone who miraculously survived a prognosticated terminal illness? Has God ever exceeded your request in answer to prayer?

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21 NASB)

10 Commandments, 2 Places (Ex. 20 & Deut. 5)

In which two Old Testament books are the Ten Commandments recorded? Exodus (20:1-17) and Deuteronomy (5:1-21)

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are foundational laws given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:1-21). They appear twice in the Old Testament, both times in the Law, in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Moses first communicated the Ten Commandments after descending from Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17) and then reiterated them in his final discourse to the people (Deuteronomy 5:1-21). This is not surprising as Deuteronomy is a retelling of the law. The name Deuteronomy means “second law”. Churches have given preferential treatment to the version given in Exodus.

The Ten Commandments are referred to elsewhere in the Bible as the ten devarim (“statements”) which is why they are grouped as a unit of ten (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4). Early English Bible translations Tyndale (1530) and Coverdale (1535) referred to them as the “ten verses”. The Geneva Bible (1560) appears to be the first English translation to use “tenne commandements”, which established the precedent for the King James Version (1611). Various religions and denominations number the commandments differently. (To see different ways in which the Ten Commandments have been grouped, click here.)

There are subtle differences in the two versions of the Ten Commandments. One glaring dissimilarity is seen in the rationale behind keeping the Sabbath, the fourth commandment. The first version cites the precedent of God resting on the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:1-3). Exodus reads:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:11 NASB)

In contrast, Deuteronomy explains:

“You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:15 NASB)

Compare and contrast the two versions of the Ten Commandments. What differences do you notice? Does it bother you that there are different reasons given to explain the fourth commandment? Which is the real reason for observing the Sabbath?

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) explained that Deuteronomy did not need to repeat the reference to creation in recording the fourth commandment as Deuteronomy itself refers back to the command from Exodus with the words “as the Lord your God has commanded you (Deuteronomy 5:12 NASB).” Instead, Moses revealed an additional motive for the command.

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) gave equal weight to both rationales for the Sabbath command. He explained, “God commanded us to abstain from work on the Sabbath, and to rest, for two purposes; namely, (1) That we might confirm the true theory, that of the Creation, which at once and clearly leads to the theory of the existence of God. (2) That we might remember how kind God had been in freeing us from the burden of the Egyptians - The Sabbath is therefore a double blessing: it gives us correct notions, and also promotes the well-being of our bodies (Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, 406).”

The two explanations given for observing the Sabbath do not contradict one another. One action can be completed for more than one reason, hence the expression killing two birds with one stone. A person eats to sustain life but might also eat to enjoy a good meal or to celebrate an event. Why did they eat? All reasons might be equally accurate.

Jesus resolved that God instituted the Sabbath for humanity’s benefit - “ The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27 NASB).

What examples can you find of people performing one action for multiple reasons? In what ways does the Sabbath benefit humanity? Do you observe the Sabbath? If so, why?

Jesus of Nazareth in Nazareth (Luke 4:17)

Which prophet did Jesus quote when He first proclaimed His ministry in the synagogue of Nazareth? Isaiah (Luke 4:17)

Though each Synoptic gospel documents Jesus’ return to his hometown of Nazareth (Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:16-30), Luke emphasizes the event by making Jesus’ homecoming the first extensively narrated act of his public ministry. The gospels all concur that the congregation initially approved of Jesus’ message (Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:22) before taking offense (Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:29). Luke records that in order to leave Nazareth, Jesus had to evade an attempt on his life as the crowd attempted to throw him headlong off of a cliff (Luke 4:29-30)!

Luke is also the only evangelist to record Jesus’ sermon text: the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:18-19). Though it is doubtful that Jesus read just the small selection from Isaiah recorded in the gospel, the essence of the Scriptures he read is preserved. The Scripture Luke chronicled is a medley from Isaiah composed predominantly of a representation of Isaiah 61:1-2 (technically Isaiah 61:1-2a) with one clause from Isaiah 58:6 (Isaiah 58:6d). Luke’s version is neither an exact rendering of the Hebrew text nor the Greek version (Septuagint) of the Isaiah passages.

The passage, as Luke records, it reads:

The Spirit of the LORD us upon me,
Because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19, NASB)

The two passages from Isaiah were likely combined thematically as the same crucial word is featured in both: aphesis. The word means “release from bondage or imprisonment” and is seen when Jesus says he is “to proclaim release to the captives” and “set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18 NASB). Combining the two passages from Isaiah emphasizes the theme of liberation that characterized Jesus’ ministry.

Why did Jesus select this particular passage from Isaiah to present to his hometown audience? How does the passage represent gospel - “good news”? Have you ever heard a minister preach a sermon at her home church? Have you ever faced difficulties in returning home?

The passage represents Jesus’ mission statement, a manifesto of sorts, as it describes the ministry Jesus was called to carry out. Isaiah 61 describes the restoration and mission of God’s people after the exile. Jesus’ connection to the passage is seen as after reading the Scripture, he announced “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing (Luke 4:21 NASB).”

In what ways did Jesus fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy? If you had to select one Old Testament passage to describe Jesus’ mission, what would it be? What passage of Scripture do you most identify with? Do you have a personal mission statement?

“You can’t go home again” - Thomas Wolfe (1900-1938)

The King is Dead (I Chronicles 10:12)

How long did the men of Jabesh-gilead fast after Saul’s death? Seven days (I Chronicles 10:12)

Israel’s first king, Saul, and three of his sons died while battling the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (I Samuel 31:1-6; I Chronicles 10:1-6). Israel was numbed by the defeat and the disconsolate army retreated (I Samuel 31:7; I Chronicles 10:7). The death of the royal family would have been perceived as cataclysmic, equivalent to modern U.S. calamities like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The battle also marked a hapless end to a tragic life that began with vast potential (I Samuel 9:1-2).

As was military custom, the Philistine soldiers pillaged the carnage for spoils of war and while stripping the dead, they found Saul’s body (I Samuel 31:8; I Chronicles 10:8). The king would have been easily identifiable due to his exceptional height (I Samuel 9:2, 10:23) and distinguishable armor (I Samuel 17:38). Not surprisingly, the Philistines made a religious claim about the event, crediting a victory to their gods over the God of Israel (I Samuel 31:9; I Chronicles 10:9). They stripped Saul, decapitated him and graphically displayed the king’s remnants throughout the land placing his armor in the temple of Ashtoreths, his body on the wall of Beth Shan and his head in the temple of Dagon (I Samuel 31:10; I Chronicles 10:9-10).

Upon learning of this humiliation, the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead infiltrated nearby Beth Shan under cover of night and recovered Saul’s body, reverently burning his bones and burying them beneath a tree (I Samuel 31:12-13; I Chronicles 10:12). Cremation was highly rare in ancient Israel but it may have been done to insure the safety of the body. For this deed of valor they were highly praised by Saul’s successor, David (II Samuel 2:4–6) who would later have Saul’s body exhumed for proper burial in his native Benjamin (II Samuel 21:12-14).

After completing this rescue, the people of Jabesh-gilead fasted for seven days (I Chronicles 10:12; I Samuel 31:13). They publicly mourned their fallen leader. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) compares, “The prospect of public grief is a scarce practice in our society, where we are so engaged in self-deception, pretending that everything is all right.” (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 218).

The people of Jabesh-gilead risked life for the dead. Was this wise? Are there other historical or literary examples of retrieving a corpse from enemy hands for proper burial? Did the ancient view of the afterlife influence their decision? Why did the people of Jabesh-Gilead take this risk? Why did other Israelites not also retrieve Saul’s head and armor? How do you grieve? Which is healthier, the grieving process in ancient Israel or modern America?

Only the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead and eventually David and his men fasted when they learned of the fallen king’s passing (I Samuel 31:13; II Samuel 1:12; I Chronicles 10:12). Saul’s approval rating was low as his behavior was often erratic. The threatened monarch attempted to kill his perceived rival, David (I Samuel 18:10-11, 19:1, 9-10, 11-14), and even his own son, Jonathan (I Samuel 20:33), and later brutally commanded the slaughter of 85 priests (I Samuel 22:17-19). His last irrational act was consulting a medium (I Samuel 28:7-19). After recording Saul’s death, I Chronicles summarized that “Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse (I Chronicles 10:13-14 NASB).”

Even so, the people of Jabesh-gilead were not afraid to be linked with the dead king when so many others were. Forty years earlier, Jabesh-gilead was the site of Saul’s first victory (I Samuel 11:1-11). Though the exact site of Jabesh-Gilead is debated, it was a town east of the Jordan River within the borders of the half tribe of Manasseh and in full view of Beth Shan. Jabesh-Gilead appears to have been aligned with the tribe of Benjamin as the people of Jabesh-Gilead did not join an earlier expedition of Israelite tribes against Benjamin at great personal cost (Judges 21:8-14) and when Nahash the Ammonite took Jabesh-Gilead, they appealed to a Benjamite - Saul (I Samuel 9:21, 10:21; I Chronicles 12:2, 29; Acts 13:21). After a day’s march, Saul routed the Ammonites and freed the city (I Samuel 11:6-11). It was a kindness Jabesh-gilead never forgot.

Some have wondered why the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead were not at the battle at Gilboa in the first place as they were counted among Israel (I Samuel 11:3-4) yet apparently failed to heed Saul’s summons to war (I Samuel 29:4). There is a possibility that their support of the king waned. Even if this is true, they would not allow their former hero to be disgraced in death.

How does the Jabesh-gilead rescue of Saul parallel his previous rescue of them? Does everyone deserve to be mourned by someone? Who will you mourn and who will mourn you? Whose past kindness have you forgotten?

“A man’s indebtedness is not virtue; his repayment is. Virtue begins when he dedicates himself actively to the job of gratitude.” - Ruth Fulton Benedict (1887-1948)

Marry Gomer, Feel God’s Pain (Hosea 1:3)

Who married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim? Hosea

Hosea was among the first writing prophets and the book bearing his name is the first of the twelve minor prophets canonized in the Bible. The Talmud claims that he was the greatest prophet of his generation (the eighth century BCE), an era which also included Isaiah (Pesachim 87A). Though he addressed Judah, Hosea was primarily concerned with the condition of the northern kingdom of Israel (whom he calls “Ephraim” 26 times) and the threat of a disaster that silently approached. (The Assyrians would eradicate the northern kingdom in 722 BCE). Though the book primarily denounces Israel for apostasy and warns of pending judgment, it also contains a promise of restoration (Hosea 3:4-5; 14:4-7). The book, however, is best known for the story of Hosea’s unstable marriage to the harlot, Gomer (Hosea 1-3).

Uncharacteristically, when the word of the Lord first came to Hosea, it was not to give him a message to relay but a personal instruction to marry a harlot (zanah). (I am betting this took him by surprise.) The command reads, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD (Hosea 1:2 NASB).” As such, Hosea’s first act as prophet was to marry a prostitute. (Pretty Woman stole its plot line from God.) God did not specify which harlot he was to marry but Hosea did as he was commanded and married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim (Hosea 1:3). (I wonder how Hosea expressed why he was interested in her...) The marriage produced three children all adorned with names that served as status updates regarding God’s relationship with Israel: Jezreel - “God sows” (Hosea 1:4-5), Lo-ruhamah - “No compassion” (Hosea 1:6-7) and Lo-ammi - “Not my people” (1:8-9). It has been suggested that the paternity of the two youngest children was questionable (Hosea 2:4). Despite God being so involved in his love story, Hosea is not mentioned once in Eric Ludy (b. 1970) and Leslie Ludy (b. 1975)’s When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Guide to Guy/Girl Relationships...

Have any other notable people married prostitutes? Why did God ask Hosea to do this? How do we explain God’s commanding his prophet to marry someone with whom he is “unequally yoked” (II Corinthians 6:14)? Have you or anyone you know ever felt called to marry a specific person or someone from a particular profession? When have you felt led by God to do something you did not want to?

Hosea used his own marital experience as a symbolic representation of God and Israel. In doing so, Hosea is believed to be the first prophet to use marriage as a metaphor for the covenant between God and Israel. The theme would recur in the work of later prophets (Isaiah 62:5; Jeremiah 3:8). Like Hosea, Jeremiah’s own marriage was scripted by God, but in his case the command was to not marry (Jeremiah 16:2).

Hosea’s first three chapters are devoted to the prophet’s marriage to the prostitute, alternating between his personal narrative and how those events paralleled God’s relationship to the nation with God portraying the dutiful husband and Israel the unfaithful wife. Hosea’s home life reflected the adulterous relationship which Israel had built with polytheistic gods and Hosea could truly empathize with the deity for whom he spoke. Through his marriage, Hosea could feels God’s pain.

Like Hosea’s selection of Gomer, God had contracted with an unreliable partner when he selected Abraham and his descendants. Even though Gomer ran away from Hosea and partnered with another man, he continued to seek her redemption (Hosea 3:1). Likewise, God had also refused to break covenant with Israel in spite of the nation worshiping other gods (Hosea 2:23, 3:1). Hosea manifested God’s love and patience for as the prophet searched for his wayward wife, found her and restored her, God would also not abandon Israel (Hosea 3:1-5). As such, the prophecy of Hosea is foremost concerned with God’s unending love towards a sinful people.

In what ways is marriage like one’s relationship to God? In what ways can you relate to Hosea? What does the fact that God would instruct Hosea to marry an unfaithful woman (and presumably make him miserable) say about the intent of marriage?

“The real purpose of marriage may not be happiness as much as it is holiness. Not that God has anything against happiness, or that happiness and holiness are by nature mutually exclusive, but looking at marriage through the lens of holiness began to put it into an entirely new perspective for me.” - Gary L. Thomas (b. 1961), Sacred Marriage: What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy, pp. 22-23

Lydia: Purple Peddler (Acts 16:14)

What was Lydia’s occupation? Seller of purple goods (Acts 16:14).

On his second missionary journey, Paul had a vision of a man from Macedonia calling him to work there and he and his companions set out immediately (Acts 16:9-10). Ironically (considering his vision), when Paul arrived in Philippi, the Macedonian capitol, he found neither men to preach to nor synagogue to preach in so he began preaching to women by a riverside (Acts 16:12-13). Among the congregation was a woman who responded to the message named Lydia, a resident of Thyatira and “dealer in purple cloth” (Acts 16:14 NASB). She insisted that Paul and his associates stay at her home and they did until they departed the region (Acts 16:15, 40). This peddler of purple is considered the first Christian convert in Europe (Acts 16:14-15).

Lydia was a self sufficient woman. Strikingly, no husband or father is used in identifying her. She was a working woman who evidently possessed an independent spirit as she fearlessly sought a religion outside the established pagan brand of the empire.

She had a unique occupation. She is described as a porphuropolis, the only time this word appears in the New Testament. It is feminine and a compound of porphura (the purple fish, a species of shell fish or mussel ) and poleo (“to barter, to sell”). While most translations add the word “cloth” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “goods” (ESV, RSV), the ASV, KJV and NKJV stick closely to the Greek and read simply that she was a “seller of purple”.

What is the significance of Lydia selling purple? If you had to put into one word what you sell, what would it be? What color do you most associate with yourself?

Lydia was in a lucrative business. Though dye extraction is no longer a viable commercial venture as modern dyes are synthetic, in Lydia’s time they were natural and purple was especially expensive. Purple was a commodity and status symbol as the costly fabric was reserved for the elite. Only the emperor wore a toga made entirely of purple cloth. The luxury item was also big business.

Purple dye was expensive because of the difficulty in extracting it. Thousands of mollusks were required to dye a single yard. Purple dye was derived from the mucus of the hypobranchial gland of the Murex shellfish. This snail was especially prominent in Lydia’s home town of Thyatira (Acts 16:14; Revelation 1:11, 2:18, 24), a city 250 miles southeast of Philippi in the Roman province of Asia (modern day Akhisar, Turkey). Murex produces a deep blue violet dye that, unlike others, is colorfast and permits the washing of garments.

This celebrated purple dye is cited in texts dating as early as 1600 BCE. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) and Pliny the Elder (23-79) document that snails were gathered in autumn or winter and kept alive until a huge quantity had been collected as each shell produced only a single drop of dye. The dye was extracted by crushing smaller shells and piercing larger ones. The milky fluid was then put into brine where vinegar was added and was then left in the sun until the color gradually transformed from a yellowish hue to a deep purplish red. It was then boiled down to further concentrate it. It took approximately 12,000 shellfish to extract 1½ grams of pure dye. One gram of purple dye was valued more than ten grams of gold and a pound of wool dyed with a favored purple could be sold for 1,000 denarii, a sum that would take a laborer three years to earn. A whole cloak of such material might cost three times that amount.

Lydia’s involvement in this business explains how she had the resources to host Paul and his companions during their lengthy stay (Acts 16:15, 40). Lydia and Paul met on a riverside at a “place of prayer” which appears to have been a space or enclosure in the open air consecrated for this purpose, not an edifice (Acts 16:13-14). Lydia challenged Paul to have faith in her: “If you consider me a believer in the Lord ...come and stay at my house (Acts 16:15, NASB).” Paul trusted Lydia and her home provided a structure where the Philippian church could meet. Even while Paul was imprisoned, she did not abandon him (Acts 16:22-40).

Why did Lydia open her home to Paul and his companions? How can your home be used to serve Christ?

“I read somewhere, in an article on monastic spirituality, that only people who are basically at home, and at home in themselves, can offer hospitality.” - Kathleen Norris (b. 1947), Amazing Grace: A Vocabulary of Faith, p. 267

Spare Rib or Better Half? (Genesis 2:22)

From what did God create woman? Out of the rib of Adam (Genesis 2:22).

The creation of woman is one of the most well known Bible stories. After generating Adam in the Garden of Eden, God observed that “it is not good for the man to be alone” and vowed to produce a suitable partner (Genesis 2:18 NASB). After unsuccessfully finding a companion amongst the animal kingdom, God anaesthetized Adam and fashioned a woman from one of his ribs (Genesis 2:20-22). Adam was ecstatic with the results and erupted with the first recorded poetry (Genesis 2:23). The woman was later named Eve (which means “life”) as “she was the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20 NASB).

A false myth derived from this story that men have one fewer rib than women. In fact, all humans have 24 ribs as anyone who has a body part surgically removed will not pass that trait onto their offspring.

Of all the body parts, why was a rib used in making the woman? Which part of Adam’s anatomy would you have preferred for this function?

The Bible does not say why God selected the rib but it has served for some humorous speculation. Why did God use the rib? Responses have included: Because it was the only thing that was “spare”. God offered Adam a better companion, but it was going to cost him an arm and a leg. At least she was not pulled out of his butt. This text has also been used in the battle of the sexes as women have bragged that they were not made from dirt and bitter men have said that the moral of the story is that women have been stealing from men since the dawn of time.

In more serious conjecturing, some have seen the rib as a pragmatic choice as it is something Adam could live without. Ribs are also the only bones in the body capable of regeneration if removed, so long as the periosteum (the membrane of connective tissue that surrounds the bone) is left intact. In one study, rib material was used in skull reconstruction and all twelve patients demonstrated complete regeneration of the removed rib. Human rib bone marrow mononuclear cells are also useful in genetic testing and (theoretically) genetic engineering.

Some have taken a sentimental view of the rib. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) wrote, “Woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

Others have seen the rib as tied to Sumerian mythology which tells of a consortium of gods who were transforming the land of Dilmun into a paradise until Enki (the water god) snacked on a forbidden plant. This prompted Ninhursag (the earth goddess) to curse Enki causing eight of his vitals to fail. Eventually, Ninhursag relented but needed to create eight new deities to heal each of Enki’s ailments. On the surface, the myth bares little resemblance to the tale of Adam and Eve aside from paradise being lost from eating forbidden fruit. The connection is in the names. The Hebrew name “Eve” is related to the verb “make live” and in Sumerian, the word for “make live” is ti which is also the Sumerian word for “rib”. Thus, the name of the goddess created to cure Enki’s rib, “Nin-Ti”, is a Sumerian pun, meaning both “The Lady of the Rib” and “The Lady Who Makes Live”.

Some scholars are not convinced that Genesis speaks of a rib. As Biblical Hebrew has no term for penis, it has been speculated that the “rib” which created the woman references the baculum, a bone which stiffens the penis. It would explain why humans are one of only two primates who lack a baculum, relying instead on hydraulics. A baculum, unlike a rib, is associated with reproduction. In this interpretation, when God “closed up the flesh at that place”(Genesis 2:21 NASB) the text is alluding to the raphe, a seam on the penis and scrotum.

Virtually every modern translation states that the first woman was created from man’s “rib” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). It can be argued, however, that “rib” is not the best translation of the Hebrew tsela’. This word is used 41 times in the Old Testament and it is only translated “rib” in relation to the creation story (Genesis 2:21-22). The only other time ribs appear in the Old Testament is in Daniel where the Aramiac ’ala’ is used (Daniel 7:5). Tsela’ is most commonly translated “side”. While the modern English word “rib” denotes a single bone in the upper torso, the Hebrew implies a far broader surgical focus that required greater sacrifice on Adam’s part. This view is seen in the Artscroll Torah, The Stone Edition which reads “...and He took one of his sides and He filled in the flesh in its place.”

Though the tradition of woman coming from man’s rib is longstanding it may not be original. Philo (20 BCE-50 CE) wrote “The letter of this statement is plain enough; for it is expressed according to the symbol of the part, a half of the whole, each party, the man and the woman, being as sections of nature co-equal for the production of that genus which is called man (Philo, The Works Of Philo, p. 796).”

If God took one “side” of Adam to make Eve, it could be said that God split Adam to make Eve, giving new meaning to the expression “my better half”. The words “bone of my bones” and “flesh of my flesh” would also take on new significance (Genesis 2:23). God dividing Adam in half to create a woman for him is a much more powerful symbol than merely taking a small bone out of his side. It creates far more equal imagery. In this scenario, the woman quite literally completes the man.

God did not make woman separate from man by forming her from dust. In creating woman from a part of the man, an immediate connection was also created. She was not another of God’s creatures that just happened to be paired with Adam. She was custom built to act as Adam’s partner. Rabbi Berlin (1816-1893) comments: “Only ‘this time’ is it so, since she is a ‘bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh’; [here, Adam’s love for Eve] is like a person who loves his own hand.”

How one reads this text is critical as it is foundational to the relationship between men and women (I Timothy 2:13-14) and affects one’s interpretation of marriage. Critics see the passage as serving to keep women in a subservient position. Others see the story as a beautiful picture of the marriage partnership (Ephesians 5:28-30).

Woman was created last. Does this make woman the crown of creation or subservient to man? What do you think the story of the creation of woman says about the relationship between men and women? What is the relationship between men and women?

Pursuing Perfection (Matthew 5:48)

Complete: “Be ye perfect as your ________________ is perfect.” Father in heaven (Matthew 5:48).

After advising his followers to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, love one’s enemies and even pray for them (Matthew 5:38-47), Jesus raised the bar even further. He concluded this section of his acclaimed Sermon on the Mount by disqualifying all human standards of conduct - “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48 KJV).

Almost every major translation renders the Greek teleios as “perfect” (ASV, ESV, HCSN, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) in Matthew 5:48. (The CEV and MSG omit the word.) Teleios can mean: 1. brought to its end, finished; 2. wanting nothing necessary; to completeness; 3. perfect; 4. that which is perfect. It conveys something that has completed its objective and carries with it the idea of being whole. Anything that has fully attained that for which it was designed is said to be “perfect” (teleios).

Jesus added the unnecessary pronoun “you” (humeis) to this statement, making it emphatic (Matthew 5:48). In doing so, Jesus forcefully established the highest standard possible for his followers: perfection. Many have commented that Jesus did not create a new requirement as God’s standard has always been perfect holiness (Leviticus 11:44, 19:2, 20:26; I Peter 1:15-16). John MacArthur (b. 1939) writes, “It is folly to think that being imperfect somehow provides us with a legitimate excuse to exempt us from God’s perfect standard (MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience, 126).”

As Jesus himself was sinless (John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15), he is the only human being who has ever been in a position to make this command. Even so, human beings are not perfect. Does Jesus command the impossible? How can one fulfill this wish? What would the perfect version of you look like?

Jesus’ words do not necessarily represent a command. The Greek can be read in the future tense - “You will be perfect”. In Greek, the future tense is the same as the imperative (a command) as in each case, a sigma infix is added to the middle of the verb. (In modern English, it is like adding an S to the middle of a verb and is not much different than what Snoop Dogg [b. 1971] does in adding -izzle to words.) The ASV, NKJV, and NLT render the verse in the future tense -“Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48 NKJV).”

This reading also complies with the meaning of teleios, which was also used to refer to the maturity of an adult, which is the end to which a child aims. A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) explains that teleios “comes from telos, end, goal, limit. Here it is the goal set before us, the absolute standard of our Heavenly Father (Robertson, Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I, 49).”

C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) devotes a chapter of Mere Christianity to Matthew 5:48 entitled “Counting the Cost” (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 201-206). He summarizes the issue:

I find a good many people have been bothered by…our Lord’s words “Be ye perfect.” Some people seem to think this means “Unless you are perfect, I will not help you,”; and as we cannot be perfect, then if He meant that, our position is hopeless. But I do not think He did mean that. I think He meant “The only help I will give is help to become perfect. You may want something less; but I will give you nothing less (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 201).”

Humans were created to be perfect. Seeing perfection as our destiny instead of merely a command moves the tone of the text from demanding to encouraging. We are a work in progress and, with God’s assistance, the work we are working towards is perfection.

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) explains that to achieve this goal of perfection “you must turn away from your own efforts completely and receive instead the perfection which God has already taken steps to provide for you. Nothing that you will ever do will be perfect. Only what God does is perfect. Hence, if you are to reach the perfection which God requires, it must be as the result of His working for you and in you (Boice, Sermon on the Mount, 170-171).

The key is that we move towards and not away from perfection. Lewis encourages, “This is the other and equally important side of it—this Helper who will, in the long run, be satisfied with nothing less than absolute perfection, will also be delighted with the first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the simplest duty (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 202).”

Perfection is the standard. Direction is the test. Are you moving towards perfection?

“Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor, the enemy of the people. It will keep you cramped and insane your whole life.” - Anne Lamott (b. 1954), Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life, p. 28

The Perfect Crime? (Genesis 37:31)

Whose coat was dipped in blood? Joseph’s (Genesis 37:31).

Jacob bestowed a special garment to his son, Joseph, which represented his status as the favorite (Genesis 37:3). The coat served to increase hostility between Jacob and his ten elder stepbrothers who were already peeved that he was a tattletale who bragged of grandiose dreams (Genesis 37:2, 4, 8, 11, 20). Their hatred led the stepbrothers to hatch a plot to eliminate Joseph (Genesis 37:18-36). Their initial plan was for Joseph to be murdered, thrown into a pit and the brothers to claim he had been devoured by a beast (Genesis 37:20). Eldest brother, Reuben, intervened on the seventeen year old’s behalf and convinced his brothers that violence was unnecessary and that abandoning him in a chasm would be sufficient (Genesis 37:21-22). Reuben planned to retrieve Joseph from the shaft but while his brothers ate as if nothing was wrong, Judah saw a band of traveling Ishmaelites and motioned to sell Joseph to them (Genesis 37:25-28). Reuben’s rescue was foiled and Joseph was sold into slavery.

As is so often the case, one sin led to another. A problem remained - what were they going to tell dad? The brothers had eliminated Joseph but needed to invalidate the possibility of his return in their father’s mind. There could be no search parties. The brothers engaged in a sophomoric cover up as they slaughtered a goat and covered Joseph’s unmistakable tunic in the goat’s blood (Genesis 37:31). The Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi conjectures that they selected a goat as its blood was most like human blood. They then presented the cloak to their father and careful not to lie, allowed him to make his own conclusions about the fate of his favored son (Genesis 37:32). They inform their father, “We found this; please examine it to see whether it is your son’s tunic or not (Genesis 37:32 NASB).” Even in asking Jacob to identify the tunic, they distance themselves from the scenario by referring to Joseph as “your son” as opposed to “our brother” (Genesis 37:32). The message accompanying the cloak is blunt. There is no compassion nor any attempt to soften the blow.

It is Jacob’s verdict that Joseph was devoured by a ferocious animal, not the brothers (Genesis 37:33). Jacob collapsed under the weight of his bereavement (Genesis 37:34-35). Had the father controlled his grief he might have found it suspicious that the cloak was stained though not torn, but holding Joseph’s bloody garment in his hands, it never occurred to him that his sons were deceiving him just as he had deceived his father (Genesis 27:1-29). Jacob’s giving of the cloak had caused the brothers pain and their giving it to Jacob caused him more. This cruelty demonstrates that the brothers’ contempt was not directed only towards the favored son but also towards the father who favored him.

Did the brothers need to strip Joseph of the tunic? What other “proof” could they have collected? Do you think the destruction of the coat was convenient or did they take pleasure in it? Is it any wonder that Jacob preferred Joseph?

The special coat given by Jacob to his beloved son, Joseph, became the object of the brothers’ hatred, the symbol of their animosity. It was not by chance that their plot included the permanent staining and intentional soiling it of the tunic. It must have been cathartic for the brothers to destroy the garment.

Although Joseph’s coat is mentioned only in Genesis 37, it has become his personal icon (Genesis 37:3, 23, 31, 32, 33). It represents him and in this story quite literally, the clothes made the man. As the cloak caused him so much pain, some scholars have made an acronym of the Hebrew adjective pasim used to describe the coat with the letters corresponding to those who bought him as a slave: Potiphar (Genesis 37:36, 39:1-23), traders (Sokharim, Genesis 37:28), Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:25-28), Midianites (Genesis 37:28, 36).

The Hebrew used to describe the coat is k’tonet pasim. Though the story will forever be branded by the King James Version’s “coat of many colours” (ASV, KJV), the garment has been translated as a “long robe with sleeves” (RSV, NRSV), “robe of many colors” (ESV, HCSB), “tunic of many colors” (NKJV), “varicolored tunic” (NASB), “elaborately embroidered coat” (MSG), “ornate robe” (NIV), “beautiful robe” (NLT), and “fancy coat” (CEV). The only other time this exact Hebrew wording is used describes the garb of a royal princess also in the context of strife amongst siblings (II Samuel 13:18). The first time the word k’tonet (“tunic”) is used is at the dawn of history to describe the clothes God made Adam and Eve following their eating of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:21). There is a tradition that these garments were one and the same, handed down from Adam eventually to Esau, where they were used by Jacob to procure the blessing from his father. The specific history and features of the garment are not as significant as the favoritism is represented.

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) wrote, “Every act of murder seeks to eliminate not only a human being, but also some sort of impediment in the murderer’s path, and most murder motives tend to be based on jealousy or covetousness.” (Westermann, Joseph: studies of the Joseph stories in Genesis, 13). In discarding Joseph, the brothers eliminated a rival to their father’s love and also destroyed the symbol of his priority.

Amazingly, they appear to have gotten away with the crime! Nowhere in Genesis is it claimed that Jacob ever found out what actually happened and they never suffered any tangible consequences for selling their brother into slavery. Though the brothers assume Jacob knew (Genesis 50:17), Jacob makes no mention of this transgression in his final blessings of his sons (Genesis 49:1-27). Had he known, Jacob would no doubt have mentioned the fact in these last words. Even so, it must have been difficult to have such a skeleton in the family closet. As seen by the brothers’ fear after their father’s death, the action (and fear of reprisal) was always with them (Genesis 50:15-20).

Which of the brothers’ actions was crueler - selling Joseph or deceiving Jacob? What is the biggest skeleton in your family’s closet? How does it affect you? God is not even hinted at in Genesis 37. Where was God when these events transpired?

Asa & Mary Baker Eddy (I Kings 15:24)

Who was Jehoshaphat’s father? King Asa.

Jehoshaphat’s father, Asa, was king of Judah (I Kings 15:8-24; II Chronicles 14:1-16:14). The civil war that divided Israel into Judah (south) and Israel (north) was the result of the unreasonableness of Asa’s grandfather, Rehoboam (I Kings 12:1-20). As such, Asa was the third king of Judah.

Asa is one of the few kings of the divided monarchy that receives a favorable review in the Biblical text (I Kings 15:11, 14; II Chronicles 14:2). He reigned for 41 years (II Chronicles 16:13). Spiritually, he reinforced strict national observance of Judaism (II Chronicles 14:3-5; 15:8-15) and even removed his own mother (possibly grandmother), Maacah, for heathenism (I Kings 15:13; II Chronicles 15:16). Politically, Asa stopped a large scale invasion by the Egyptian-backed chieftain Zerah the Ethiopian (II Chronicles 14:9-15) and outbid Baasha, king of Israel, to secure a treaty with Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, to thwart Baasha’s advance on his capitol (I Kings 15:16-22; II Chronicles 16:1-6).

Were someone to summarize your life as the book of Kings did Asa’s, what accomplishments would be listed? What failures? If your mother were sinning (hypothetically, I do not mean to talk about anybody’s mama) would you correct her?

Though Kings chronicles only one criticism of Asa, Chronicles relays three. Each book notes that the high places were not removed during Asa’s administration but both quickly add comments lauding the king’s heart (I Kings 15:14; II Chronicles 15:17). Chronicles adds two opprobriums, both questioning Asa’s total reliance upon God late in his life. The seer Hanani accused the ruler of being overly dependent on his alliance with Aram and Asa imprisoned the prophet in response (II Chronicles 16:7-10). Finally, though both Kings and Chronicles record an anticlimactic foot ailment incurred during his last days (I Kings 15:23; II Chronicles 16:12), Chronicles adds the censure, “His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians (II Chronicles 16:12 NASB)”. Ironically, Asa’s name means “healer” or “physician” in Hebrew.

Some religious groups, most famously Christian Science, have used this latter disparagement as a proof text to reject worldly medicine even during a severe illness. Despite being married to a man named Asa, the case of the Biblical Asa is not found in founder Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910)’s opus Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. He was, however, written about in the publication she founded, The Christian Science Journal. In 1910, Silas Cobb wrote, “there is no record that God or Jesus Christ made use of any material remedy to cure disease; but it is recorded that king Asa ‘slept with his fathers,’ after trying drugs to heal him; which would seem to indicate that it was wrong (The Christian Science Journal,Vol. 28, No. 3, June, 1910).”

Asa is criticized for not seeking the Lord first, not for consulting physicians. It is not an either/or proposition. A physician can be the hands of God in a given situation. Both the Old and New Testaments record servants of God recommending medication. Isaiah the prophet used a “cake of figs” to heal a boil (II Kings 20:7 NASB) and Paul prescribed Timothy “a little wine” to treat a stomach ailment (I Timothy. 5:23 NASB).

Do you believe that God still cures illnesses? Why did Asa, who was devoted to God, not seek divine assistance in this instance? When you get ill, do you pray? What if you deem the illness to be insignificant? Why was this anticlimactic detail included in Asa’s life summary?

Perhaps it was recorded to remind that Asa could not jump like his son Jehoshaphat...

Haggai: The Time is Now (Haggai 1:1)

To what governor did Haggai prophesy? Zerubabbel (Haggai 1:1)

Haggai prophesied from Jerusalem in 520 BCE. His work is canonized as one of the twelve Minor Prophets. The book appears third from last in the Old Testament as its material covers the last days of the era. The Bible includes no biographical details concerning Haggai and he is given no introduction other than designating him as a prophet (Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Haggai 1:1). The book of Haggai is very short, spanning only two chapters and containing just 38 verses. You can hear the entire book read (in a British accent no less) in just 7:16 in this YouTube clip. Haggai is addressed to the governor, Zerubabbel, and the high priest, Joshua (Haggai 1:1). One of Haggai’s primary functions was to motivate a politician. He might even be deemed a lobbyist by today’s standards. Zerubabbel is persuaded and at the book’s conclusion, God refers to Zerebbabel as “my servant” and confers upon him a “signet ring”, a symbol of divine favor (Haggai 2:20-23).

Are any modern lobbyists doing work that might be deemed prophetic? How does Haggai factor into the discussion of the relationship between church and state?

Contrary to popular belief about prophets, Haggai did not speak to the future (not that the book is not useful today). Haggai spoke directly to the present. In fact, Haggai is easy to date (as in place in history as opposed to engage in a romantic encounter) as he documented the dates of his prophecies. Haggai emerged during the second year of Darius I (Haggai 1:1). Based on the records in the book, Haggai’s messages were delivered within a fifteen week period from August 29 to December 18, 520 BCE.

Haggai’s mission was to convince the people and government to utilize new government allowances to rebuild the temple. The question was not if the temple should be rebuilt but when. In any building project, there are nay sayers who wish to delay (Haggai 1:2). Haggai exhorted that the right time was now. The message of Haggai is the message of The Chambers Brothers - “Time Has Come Today” (1968). (Ironically, their eleven minute song has a longer run time than Haggai’s entire book.)

What shelved project have you felt like God calling you to? Is the time now?

Haggai was one of the catalysts behind the rebuilding of the temple. His mission was successful and the temple was rebuilt (Haggai 1:12, 1:14-15). It is unknown what happened to Haggai after his final message but his work was continued by his contemporary, Zechariah. Haggai’s entire work took fifteen weeks. What will you be doing in the next four months?

Elisha and the Killer Bears (II Kings 2:24)

What happened to children who made fun of Elisha’s bald head? Bears ate them (II Kings 2:24)

Elisha was involved in a graphic incident at Bethel in which the prophet’s curse led to the death of his critics (II Kings 2:23-24). The story seems out of character for Elisha who had just completed a mercy mission in Jericho (II Kings 2:15-22) and went to Bethel not to curse, but to bless. Bethel had a history of idolatry as King Jeroboam had promoted pagan worship there (I Kings 12:28-33). Elisha arrived to criticism from a group of youth and cursed the offending parties, 42 of whom were subsequently devoured by bears (II Kings 2:23-24). This troublesome text has often been viewed as a cautionary tale to not harm God’s anointed (Psalm 105:15).

This short horror story has evoked images like the one above from New Zealand caricaturist Graham Williamson and nonbelievers have often cited this atrocity as reason to reject the faith. Not surprisingly, apologists have attempted to soften the story. The mitigating circumstances used to cushion the text include posing that the victims were not children, that their criticism of Elisha had little to do with his bald head and that the bears likely only mauled rather than ate the children.

The age of the bears’ victims is debated. The wording “little children” comes from the King James Version (II Kings 2:23). The standard refutation of this understanding is exemplified by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933):

“Little children” is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression n^e‘urîm q^eţannîm is best rendered “young lads” or “young men.” From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 232).

Ancient Jewish society did consider a male to be a young lad until he reached the age of thirty and the cases Kaiser cites of the use of the Hebrew na’ar (“lads”) are accurate but in this text, the adjective quatan (“small”) is added to na’ar . In response, Kaiser cites the case of David being described by similar terms when he was old enough to serve as a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11-12). Kaiser’s argument is not conclusive as evidenced by the various translations of the text. While different translations make the age of the victims seem slightly different, they all affirm that the victims were younger. The text is alternately rendered “small boys” (ESV, HCSB, NRSV, RSV), “boys” (CEV, NIV, NLT), “young lads” (ASV, NASB), “youths” (NKJV), and “little kids” (MSG). The real issue regarding the age is that of innocense.

Because of the youth of the adversaries and their numeric advantage, Norman Geisler (b. 1932) defends the prophet by attacking the youths: “As best we can tell, this was a violent mob of dangerous teenagers, comparable to a modern street gang (Lee Strobel [b.1952], The Case for Faith, 123).” It has also been speculated that this group was associated with prophets of Ba’al making the text parallel Elijah’s triumph on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:16-40). Coincidentally, Mount Carmel was Elisha’s next destination (II Kings 2:25).

Was the prophet in danger? Even if he was, is the punishment not severe? How does the age of the children effect your reading of the passage? Does your interpretation change if you picture the Hitler Youth instead of elementary school students? Does God ever ordain the killing of children?

The divisive issue was not Elisha’s hairstyle. The prophet is mocked with the refrain “Go up, you baldhead (II Kings 2:23 NASB)”. The command “go up” both mocked the ascension of Elijah (II Kings 2:1-12) and instructed the prophet to leave the premises. The juvenile epithet “you bald head” was then added. Given that prophets’ heads were covered it is doubtful they knew whether or not Elisha was bald. Baldness was rare in the Ancient Near East and could have been associated with leprosy (Isaiah 3:17, 24).

F.W. Krummacher (1796-1868) expounds:

Baldness was regarded by the lower orders as a kind of disgrace; for as it was one of the usual consequences of leprosy, so it was accounted a sign of personal and mental degradation. Hence, in using this opprobrious epithet, the young profligates had a most malicious intention (Krummacher, Elisha, A Prophet For Our Times, 13).

The prophet’s credibility, not alopecia, was the real issue. Their mocking strategically attacked both God’s message and the messenger.

In response, Elisha cursed his detractors “in the name of the LORD” which resulted in two she-bears emerging from the woods to maul 42 youths (II Kings 2:24 NASB). The Hebrew for “cursed” (qalal) does not entail being laced with profanity. It has been speculated that Elisha pronounced a curse similar to the covenant curse of Leviticus 26:21-22. Elisha neither summoned the bears nor called for the youths’ deaths. He merely pronounced judgment on the demonstrators and God decided the form of the response.

Did Elisha intend for the youths to die? What should Elisha have done? What would you have done had you been surrounded by a horde of mockers?

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) sees mercy in the text:

The savagery of wild animals was brutal enough, but it was mild compared to the legendary cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judgment in 722 BC. The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly sever divine judgments that followed it. But instead of turning back to God, Israel, as would Judah in a later day, “mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy” (II Chronicles 36:16). (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 233-34)

While this provides a positive slant on this text, a lot of harm could be done and has been done using this same rationale (Read: The Inquisition).

Even taking the most tame version of the story - a prophet’s ministry was in peril (not a hypersensitive image conscience leader) by a gang of miscreants (not preschoolers) who were mauled (not eaten) by bears - the story is problematic and God appears harsh.

The passage does not bear any resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. How should a Christian handle this text? Why was the misdeed of the youths punished so severely when others in Scripture were not? Is there a moral to this story? Why is this passage included in the Scriptures? Is it simply a cautionary tale?

“We’re all born bald, Baby!” - Telly Savalas (1922-1994)

The Perfect Gift (II Corinthians 9:15)

Who wrote “Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift”? Paul (II Corinthians 9:15)

While exhorting the Corinthians to fulfill their promise to prepare an offering (II Corinthians 9:5), Paul reminded them that all our giving is a poor imitation of God’s generosity (II Corinthians 9:10-15). At the conclusion of his discourse, Paul adds the doxology “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift (II Corinthians 9:15 NASB)!” Paul gets wrapped up in the gift and cannot help but to praise God.

When Paul writes of the indescribable gift, he uses a word not only not found elsewhere in the New Testament but also absent from any extant Greek writing before his time. Apparently, Paul invented a word for the occasion and even when he created a word to describe God’s gift the word meant indescribable. The word he concocted, anekdiegetos, is a negative version of ekdiegeomai which means “to declare, relate”. The word means “it cannot be declared”. Paul is not claiming that one should not describe the gift only that we cannot adequately do so. Anekdiegtos has been translated as “indescribable” (HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV), “inexpressible” (CEV, RSV), “unspeakable” (ASV, KJV), and “too wonderful for words” (CEV, NLT). The Message paraphrases “no language can praise it enough”. God’s gift is beyond words and left the verbose apostle speechless.

Have you ever been rendered speechless by someone’s gift? What is the best gift anyone ever got you? (Anything better than a Lexus or even a Big Wheel?) What is God’s inexpressible gift?

Whether Paul speaks directly of the gift of Christ or salvation is disputed. This argument is superfluous as the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are so linked that they cannot be separated. For the purposes of this post, God’s greatest gift is the gift of his own son to save the world (John 3:16).

It has all the earmarks of a great gift. It is suitable for all occasions. It is appropriate for people of any age, gender or nationality. It is practical yet extravagant. It is thoughtful and was given in love. It required sacrifice on the part of the giver. It had an element of surprise. It will hopefully become a conversation piece and be part of celebrations in the recipient’s life forever. It gave the giver as much joy as the recipient (Luke 15:10). It is a gift the world would not have thought to give itself and could not give itself. It was grace.

Most gifts, no matter how magnificently received at the time, become underappreciated. Do we ever lose sight of the inexpressibleness of God’s gift? Do we, like Paul, still break into praise when considering it? If you had to attach an adjective to characterize God’s gift, what would it be? What will you do or have you done in response to this gift?

An Eye for an Eye (Exodus 21:24)

In which book do these words first appear: eye for eye, tooth for tooth? Exodus (Exodus 21:24)

The phrase “eye for eye” appears in three of the five books of the Law, first in Exodus (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). The expression is connected to personal injury law and entitles an injured party to compensation. The principle of an eye for an eye is often referred to by the Latin phrase lex talionis, the law of talion. Talion indicates a punishment identical to the offense. An eye for an eye insures that a punishment fits a crime.

An eye for an eye did not necessitate retaliation but instead capped the reprisal. This reciprocal justice was intended to minimize retribution. Human nature often seeks to “win” instead of breaking even. In the acclaimed 1987 movie The Untouchables, Jim Malone (Sean Connery [b. 1930]) advises Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner [b. 1955]), “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He [Al Capone] sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.” An eye for an eye was designed to limit such escalating revenge.

Judaism has historically interpreted the eye for eye passages as allowing for injured parties to seek proportional compensation, usually monetary. This is seen in the Talmud (Bava Kamma, 83b-84a). It is far easier to determine fair monetary compensation than to mirror exact physical injury. The literal reading has also been refuted using the argument that blind or eyeless offenders would be exempt from the law.

There are many parts of the world where lex taliones is still practiced. Is any U.S. law based upon this principle? Why were eyes and teeth selected as the representative body parts? There have been many detractors of an eye for an eye as it seems to suggest that two wrongs equal a right. Jesus could be numbered among those critics. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (Matthew 5:38-39 NASB).” The revolutionary nature of this teaching is lost today.

In the centuries since Jesus instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, many have attempted to live his words literally. Billy Bray (1794-1868) was a drunkard and coal miner who became a Christian at the age of 29. After his conversion, he transformed into a charismatic evangelist and folk hero in his native Cornwall.

D. Martyn-Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) describes an incident where Bray turned the other cheek:

Billy Bray, who before his conversion was a pugilist, and a very good one. Billy Bray was converted; but one day, down in the mine, another man who used to live in mortal dread and terror of Billy Bray before Bray’s conversion, knowing he was converted, thought he had at last found his opportunity. Without any provocation at all he struck Billy Bray, who could very easily have revenged himself upon him and laid him down unconscious on the round. But instead of doing that Billy Bray looked at him and said, ‘May God forgive you, even as I forgive you’, and no more. The result was that that man endured for several days an agony of mind and spirit which led directly to his conversion. (Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 248.)

Is there a time when seeking an eye for an eye is preferable to turning the other cheek? Which do your practice, taking an eye for an eye or turning the other cheek? Which is more natural?

“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” - attributed to Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)

Wrestling: Who’s The Man? (Genesis 32)

With whom did Jacob wrestle? An angel (Genesis 32:24-32)

The patriarch Jacob was involved in the Bible’s most famous wrestling match (Genesis 32:24-32). Jacob, a natural heel (“bad guy” in wrestling parlance, Genesis 25:26 pun intended) was caught between a rock and a hard place as he was fleeing from his feud with his uncle Laban (Genesis 31:20) and running towards his oldest rival, his brother Esau (Genesis 27:41). Having exhausted his flight options, Jacob chose to return home and face the brother he had defrauded twenty years earlier. (The Bible knew how to build to a match). Jacob sent his family away and spent his last night before the meeting alone at the ford of the Jabbok (Genesis 32:22-24). A mystery man emerged (from “parts unknown”) and the two grappled throughout the night. Just before dawn (the opponent’s “time limit”), Jacob set the purse - naturally a “blessing” (Genesis 32:26). Though no falls were scored, Jacob secured his blessing (Genesis 32:29) and a permanent injury (Genesis 32:25, 31-32). Jacob was forever changed and received a new gimmick: Israel - “he who wrestles with God.” (Genesis 32:28).

The tale is shrouded in mystery and part of the puzzle is the ambiguity around who Jacob is wrestling. The text identifies the opponent as “a man” (Genesis 32:24) but in blessing Jacob the man informs him that he has “striven with God and with men” (Genesis 32:28 NASB). The fact that the opponent refuses to identify himself has been traditionally read as an indication that the nocturnal wrestler is not human. At the end of the bout, Jacob says “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved (Genesis 32:30).” (That is putting your opponent over.) From this exclamation it has been inferred that Jacob’s wrestling match is an encounter with the divine. The traditional reading of the text claims Jacob wrestled an angel (Hosea 12:4) though Genesis never refers to the assailant as anything other than a man. There are three contenders as to who was Jacob’s opponent: the natural (a human being), the supernatural (God or an emissary), and the psychological (an internal struggle within Jacob himself).

With whom did Jacob wrestle? Who is “the man”? (In keeping with wrestling jargon, the obvious answer is “Big Van Vader”.) Does the man represent an external or an internal force? With whom or what do you wrestle?

The traditional reading is that Jacob battled a supernatural opponent. Suggestions range from an angel to the pre-incarnate Christ. The most traditional view of angel is cemented in Hosea which reads “he [Jacob] wrestled with the angel and prevailed (Hosea 12:4 NASB).”

Using the supernatural reading, French literary critic, Roland Barthes (1915-1918) analyzed the story of Jacob’s wrestling through the lens of folklore’s hero cycle. The story follows a standard pattern as the Hero (Jacob) is sent on a Quest (to return home) by the Originator of the Quest (God) when an Opponent (the man) obstructs the Hero. The expectation is for the Originator to help or send a Helper so the Hero can complete the Quest. Here, however, the Originator and the Opponent are revealed to be the same character. (Barton, Reading the Old Testament: method in biblical study,116-119.)

Others opt for a more natural reading and speculate that the opponent was a human. The assault is administered by an ’iysh (Genesis 32:24), a word almost always rendered “man.” The text makes no reference to any “angel” (mal’ak). If Jacob battled a man, the most likely suspect is his own brother. Jacob and Esau were literally born wrestling (Genesis 25:26) and Esau had motive as he would be contesting his loss of the birthright/blessing (Genesis 25:28-34, 27:30-41). The man acts like Esau as like a hunter (Genesis 25:27), he is comfortable out in the woods at night and physically overpowers Jacob. The fact that “blessing” is at stake also fits their situation as Isaac’s blessing was at the heart of the enmity between the brothers. Using this interpretation, the silence of the competitor in relation to his name represents Esau’s shame as he could not force Jacob into submission. When Jacob finally meets Esau, he greets him with the suggestive words “for I see your face as one sees the face of God” (Genesis 33:10 NASB) mirroring his claim of his opponent on the previous night (Genesis 32:30). The context clearly permits the reader to identify Jacob’s attacker as Esau. In this reading, Jacob would have finally dueled his brother to a draw and legitimized his claim to Isaac’s birthright and blessing.

Many have gained insight into viewing the event as a psychological encounter. Jacob faced his dark night of the soul alone as the bout came at a time of transition in Jacob’s life in which in modern terms, he lost his job, was trying to relocate, and was preparing to face his old foes and sins. As such, it is easy to read the story as an internal battle within the overwhelmed Jacob.

Using this slant, the opponent is Jacob’s shadow side and the story brings into the open what he had experienced subconsciously. Jacob’s feeling undeserving having had to cheat to gain the birthright bubble to the surface. He knows he has deceitfully gained blessings and needed to legitimize himself in his own mind. After the match, Jacob has an inner transformation in which his personal identity and moral autonomy are changed. Jacob, the deceiver, becomes “Israel” who can now openly struggle to fulfill his divine destiny.

This battle is a picture of the human experience of wrestling with God, an opponent whom humans cannot fully understand and certainly cannot control. Joan Chittister (b. 1936) explains, “God is not a puppeteer and God is not a magic act. God is the ground of our being, the energy of life, the goodness out of which all things are intended to grow to fullness. Yet it is a struggle…How can we possibly deal with the great erupting changes of life and come away more whole because of having been through them than we would possibly have been without them? To do that takes a spirituality of struggle.” (Chittister, Scarred by Struggle, Transformed by Hope, 16)

Regardless of which interpretation the reader prefers, Jacob encountered God and is transformed by the event. Battles with family, friends, enemies, and our own demons can all result in encounters with God, or in Jacob’s terms seeing God “face to face”.

Does it matter whom Jacob fought? If so, why does Genesis fail to mention it? Why does Jacob experience this wrestling match alone? To what extent do Jacob’s experiences wrestling mirror your own encounters with God?

“To be the man, you got to beat the man!” - Wrestling great “Nature Boy” Ric Flair (b. 1949)

Uzzah: Can’t Touch This (I Chronicles 13:10)

What happened when Uzzah tried to keep the Ark from falling off the cart on which it was being carried? He died (I Chronicles 13:10).

Tragedy struck when King David finally had the opportunity to give the Ark of the Covenant, Israel’s most holy relic and the very symbol of God’s presence, a permanent residence in his capital city (II Samuel 6:1-11; I Chronicles 13:5-14). The procession from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem was an event with great fanfare that included music and 30,000 witnesses (II Samuel 6:1; I Chronicles 13:8). The Ark had been stored at Abinadab’s house and a new cart driven by Abinadad’s sons, Uzzah and Ahio, was enlisted to transport the sacred ark (II Samuel 6:3; I Chronicles 13:7). The cavalcade ran smoothly until the oxen stumbled at Nacon’s threshing floor and Uzzah instinctively acted to steady the cart, touching the holy vessel and dying on impact (II Samuel 6:6-7; I Chronicles 13:9-10). The procession stopped dead in its tracks with Uzzah. Stunned and angered, David stored the ark with Obed-Edom the Gittite and the project was shelved for three months (II Samuel 6:10-11; I Chronicles 13:13-14).

It appears the ox stumbling was not an accident as the misstep came on a threshing floor. A threshing floor is a region of hard packed soil used to separate grain from the chaff. By definition a threshing floor is hard and level. The oxen stumbled on nothing. This is further evidenced by the fact that the ambiguous Hebrew could just easily read that the oxen shook as if the animals sensed that it was wrong for them to carry the ark. The text suggests that God stopped the procession.

The festivities’ sudden turn from triumph to tragedy and the finality of God’s action take the reader by surprise and many are left with the same reaction as David - becoming shocked, disturbed and even angry (II Samuel 6:8; I Chronicles 13:11). Was Uzzah killed for a reflexive reaction trying to protect God’s own treasure? What did Uzzah do to deserve death? What should Uzzah have done? Should he have allowed the sacred object to fall from the cart to be covered in filth or potentially shattered?

When the ark of the covenant was built, God designed very specific rules as to its transportation David must not have read the directions as none were followed on the day in question. Two significant breaches of protocol occurred in transporting the ark. First, the ark was carried by an ox cart. The ark was to be covered (Numbers 4:5-6, 15), carried only by members of a branch of Levites known as the Kohathites (Numbers 3:30-31, 4:15, 7:9), and even then only on their shoulders (Numbers 7:9) and only using poles (Exodus 25:13-16, 37:5). In fact, the Kohathites were the only chapter of Levites not to be bequeathed with carts (Numbers 7:9). Secondly, Uzzah touched the Ark, a violation punishable by death (Numbers 4:15).

Though the parallel account in II Samuel does not explain the incident, I Chronicles reports that David realized that he had not followed proper protocol (I Chronicles 15:12-15). He admits “we did not seek Him [God] according to the ordinance (I Chronicles 15:13, NASB).” Decorum seems to be a factor as when etiquette was followed, the ark was moved safely to Jerusalem without incident (II Samuel 6:13-16; I Chronicles 15:25-26).

The alternative plan David utilized appears to have been copied from the last time the ark was moved, by the Philistines. They had captured the ark in battle and after it had caused them no small trouble, returned it via cart (I Samuel 6:1-12). Like the Philistines, David employed a new cart (I Samuel 6:7; II Samuel 6:3; I Chronicles 13:7). It had been over 400 years since the law had been written. Whether David was ignorant of the law or he noticed that this method worked for his rivals and saw it as an improvement over the prescribed mode is unknown. What is clear is that David ignored God’s instructions and transported the ark in a manner that seemed right to him without seeking God’s approval. The party was for God but David did not consult God first and God crashed the party.

Many have viewed this passage as indicative that divine judgment is executed even against technical violations and that God engages in ritualistic perfectionism. The rules are nonnegotiable. The underlying assumption to this interpretation is that Uzzah’s intentions are pure.

The charge against Uzzah is “irreverence” (II Samuel 6:7 NASB). Since the ark had been housed at his home for twenty years (I Samuel 7:2; II Samuel 6:3) many believe that an over familiarity with the ark precipitated the incident. He may have become accustomed to its presence leading to an attitude of casualness that minimized its sanctity in his own mind.

Whether this is accurate or not, Uzzah instinctively touched the ark. Uzzah felt it was his responsibility to save the integrity of God and he assumed he was qualified to do so. The purpose of the laws regarding the ark were not to protect it from contact with mud but rather to insulate it from contact with sinful human hands. It was not the filth of the ground that would defile the ark but the contamination of human sin. In short, Uzzah thought that his fingers were cleaner than the dirt the ark might fall into. His misjudgement demonstrates that he either held a high view of himself or a low view of God’s holiness.

At a conference in 2007, R.C. Sproul (b. 1939) summarized, “Uzzah believed that mud would desecrate the ark, but mud is just dirt and water obeying God. Mud is not evil. God’s law was not meant to keep the ark pure from the earth, but from the dirty touch of a human hand. Uzzah presumed his hands were cleaner than the dirt. God said no.”

The tragedy did served to re-instill the fear (or holy awe) of God in King David (II Samuel 6:9; I Chronicles 13:12).

Have you become so familiar with God that you have little to no fear of the divine?

Miriam: Snow White (Numbers 12:10)

What woman turned as white as snow? Miriam, Moses’ sister (Numbers 12:10).

While the Israelites were encamped at Hazeroth (Numbers 11:35) during their wilderness wandering, Moses’ siblings, Aaron and Miriam, criticized his marriage (Numbers 12:1). God summoned the trio to the tent of meeting and arbitrated the family feud siding with Moses (Numbers 12:4-8). When God left, Miriam was leprous, “as white as snow (Numbers 12:10 NASB)”. The pallidity indicates that the disease materialized in its most malignant form (Exodus 4:6, II Kings 5:27).

After constantly dealing with criticism from the outside, Moses faced conflict within his own household from people who ought to have proved his greatest support. It is not unusual for a prophet to be without honor among his own people (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; John 4:44).

Has your family ever disapproved of your actions? Can we criticize a leader under whom we work? What is the real source of Aaron’s and Miriam’s animosity?

Two factors are connected to the dispute: Moses’ marriage and his position.

Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” And the LORD heard this. (Numbers 12:1-2, NASB)

The public issue was Moses’ marriage. The wife’s identity is shrouded in mystery as scholars debate her nationality (“Cushite” is ambiguous) and whether the woman in question is Moses’ first wife, Zipporah (Exodus 2:21). Some have seen this as a racist response to an interracial marriage. Those who feel that a second marriage was the sole reason for the dispute note that Miriam’s exile was seven days, the typical duration of a Hebrew wedding feast.

There also seems to be a dispute over hierarchy as Aaron and Miriam remind themselves that God has spoken through them as well as Moses (Numbers 12:2). This is true as Aaron (Exodus 4:15-16; 28:30) and Miriam (Exodus 15:20) had indeed spoken for God. In making this claim, they were asserting their right to lead. In the previous chapter, God granted the prophetic spirit to seventy elders and to Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:24-29), cementing a hierarchy with Moses at the top. Moses’ delegating power was an idea originally suggested by Jethro, the father of Zipporah (Exodus 18:14-26). This could connect the diluting of Aaron’s and Miriam’ s power to Moses’ wife.

The rabbinic interpretations connect the two seemingly divergent strains of the story by imagining that Miriam challenged Moses because she believed that he was neglecting his wife (e.g. Rashi (1040-1105) on Numbers 12:1). In this reading, Aaron and Miriam were, in effect, saying that they were also prophets yet had not disregarded their family obligations. This does not fit the tone of the text as the they name the woman’s nationality unnecessarily and do not name her, which hardly sounds like they are advocating for her.

It appears Moses’ marriage was merely pretense concealing a power play. Moses, the youngest of the three siblings, had become the leader (Exodus 2:3-4, 6:20; Numbers 26:59). The timing of the event in connection with the appointment of the seventy shows that Aaron and Miriam’s power was waning. The otherwise needless parenthetical aside regarding Moses’ humility (Numbers 12:3) signals that pride played a role in this incident. Most decidedly, when God rebukes Aaron and Miriam at length nothing is said of Moses’ marriage, attesting that it was not the issue (Numbers 12:6-8).

Though Aaron acknowledges his own complicity (Numbers 12:11), Miriam receives all of the punishment. Why does Miriam take one for the team? Does gender play any role? What is God’s purpose in afflicting Miriam?

The text subtly demonstrates that Miriam was the instigator in the sedition. Though no modern English translations (outside of [Robert] Young [1822-1888]’s Literal Translation) indicate it, the verb used for “spoke” (dabar) used in Numbers 12:1 is the feminine singular form (v’tidaber). It should literally read “and she spoke” connoting that it was Miriam who spoke against Moses. That Miriam is named ahead of Aaron is further evidence that she spearheaded the attack. In every other instance when the two are named, including two in this story, Aaron is listed ahead of Miriam (Numbers 12:4, 5, 26:59; I Chronicles 6:3; Micah 6:4). Aaron simply followed as he had done at Sinai when he made the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:1-6). Even so, Aaron was involved and appears to go undisciplined. In a similar incident, Adam was reproved for his part in “The Fall”, even though he was not the instigator (Genesis 3:17-19).

The Talmud argues that Aaron’s status as high priest excluded him from leprosy as the high priest could not become unclean (Leviticus 21:10-12). In fact, as high priest, Aaron would have been responsible for pronouncing Miriam leprous (Leviticus 13). Had he contracted leprosy, Aaron would no longer have been able to perform his duties as high priest and worship would have been interrupted. Though many priests and preachers have been spared for the sake of institutions they represented, this would set a bad theological precedent as the priest would be allowed to sin more than the populace rather than be held to a higher standard (James 3:1).

Miriam’s contracting leprosy may have been an ingenious method of conflict resolution. The brothers’ protectiveness of their sister kicked in and they reunited immediately to face the issue. Their emotional response to the situation indicates their concern for their sister (Numbers 12:11-13). They may have been close to her in ways they were not to each other. When Miriam contracts leprosy, the group’s focus shifts and all three are reminded that before they were the exalted leaders of a burgeoning nation, they were family. Perhaps God was not making an example out of Miriam but rather reuniting a family, gaining repentance from the offending parties and restoring community. In an instant, that is what happened.

Micah 6:4 remembers the trio as the leaders of the Exodus. Together.

“Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt
And ransomed you from the house of slavery,
And I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam. (Micah 6:4, NASB)

Sadducees: Sad-You-Sees (Matthew 22:23)

Which Jewish group did not believe in the resurrection? Sadducees (Matthew 22:23).

The Sadducees were a powerful political/religious party during the New Testament era. Like most Jewish sects, the New Testament presents them in opposition to Jesus (Matthew 3:7, 16:1, 6, 11, 12, 22:23, 24; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1, 5:17, 23:6, 7, 8). In Matthew, the Sadducees are often grouped with the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7; 16:1, 5, 11, 12; 22:34). Accurately characterizing the Sadducees is difficult as they left no written records of their own history, organization or beliefs. All of the documents that remain concerning them were written by their competitors: the New Testament, Flavius Josephus [37-100] (Jewish Wars 2.119, 164--66; Antiquities of the Jews 13.171-73, 293-98; 18.11; 16-17; 20.199; The Life of Flavius Josephus10-11) and random rabbinic texts.

The Sadducees emerged around 150 BCE and disbanded after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. They were so bound to the status quo that the absence of a temple made them obsolete. In contrast to Matthew’s presentation, rabbinic literature (as well as Acts) depicts the Pharisees and Sadducees as bitter rivals. It is generally agreed that the name “Sadducees” (Greek: Saddoukaios) is related to the Hebrew tsadaq which means “to be righteous”. Their precise connection to the word is disputed. The most common suggestion associates the sect’s name with the personal name Zadok, either the Solomonic priest Zadok (I Kings 1:39) or another individual of that name. In any case, the doubling of the second consonant is problematic etymologically.

Interestingly, the Sadducees were more known for what they did not believe in than what they did. The New Testament defines the Sadducees by what they rejected, namely resurrection, angels and spirits (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). Likewise, when chronicling the Sadducees’ beliefs, Josephus also discusses more what they disavowed than what they accepted. According to Josephus, the Sadducees renounced fate, the concept that God commits evil (all evil emerges from humanity’s free will), the immortality of the soul, an afterlife, and postmortem rewards or penalties.

The Sadducees also rejected resurrection. In the New Testament era, resurrection was a divisive issues amongst Jewish factions. When on trial before the Sanhedrin, Paul invoked the topic to divide his accusers amongst themselves (Acts 23:6). Though the Sadducees appear infrequently in the New Testament, the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection is explicitly stated four times (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). The Sadducees’ most prominent appearance in the Bible comes when they challenge Jesus with a hypothetical scenario involving one bride for seven brothers (Matthew 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38). In an effort to make resurrection seem ridiculous, they ask Jesus about a widow who married seven brothers sequentially. The fact that the New Testament writers would focus on this aspect of the Sadducees is not surprising as resurrection is obviously foundational to Christian thought. A classic corny preacher joke asks “Why were they called ‘Sadducees’? Because they didn’t believe in the resurrection so they were ‘sad-you-see’”.

Josephus confirms the Sadducees’ denial of the soul, eternal rewards, and the world to come (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews , 18.1.4 [16]; Jewish Wars , 2.8.14 [165]). The Sadducees appear to have denied the supernatural entirely and kept their focus on this world

Do you know any organizations who are defined more by what they are not than what they are? The Sadducees were debating the resurrection before Jesus was raised. When and why does the concept of resurrection register on the theological radar? Why did the Sadducees reject resurrection?

The Sadducees actually rejected the concept of resurrection because they saw it as an affront to God’s sovereignty. John Riches (b. 1939) explains:

Rejection of belief in resurrection again indicates a traditionalist stance. Jews had long believed that so long as Israel obeyed the law then God would rule over them and reward the righteous and punish the wicked in this life. Belief in the resurrection, on the other hand, was linked to beliefs that the present age was in the grip of dark powers, so that in this life the righteous would suffer, although God would ultimately vindicate them. Those who had died would be raised so that they too could receive their due rewards. To reject belief in the resurrection and, indeed, possibly also in demonic powers who controlled this world in the present age, was then also to reject the belief that this present age was radically corrupted; in fact, from the Sadducees' point of view, those who argued the contrary view may have appeared to deny the continued existence of the covenant between God and Israel. (Bruce M. Metzger [1914-2007)] and Michael D. Coogan [b. 1942], The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 272).

The Sadducees are not all that different from modern religious people. They held firm to their tradition and rejected new beliefs like resurrection.

Though the Pharisees are often remembered as Jesus’ primary rivals, Jesus advised his followers to “beware” of the teaching of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matthew 16:6,11, 12).

Who are there modern-day Sadducees? What Sadducean tendencies do you have?

“It is not the brutal skeptic who is the Sadducee, he does not destroy anybody’s shrines, it is the woman with particularly bright conceptions of their own, but who are far more concerned with the visible success of this world than with anything else. You go to them with some insurgent doubt in your mind, and they smile at you, and say, ‘Oh, don’t exercise your mind on those things, it is absurd.’ That is the Sadducee who has done more to deface in modern life what Jesus Christ began to do than all the blackguardism and drunkenness in our modern civilization. The subtle destruction of all that stands for the invisible is what is represented by the Sadducee.” - Oswald Chambers (1874-1917), “The Base Impulse”, The Highest Good,