Entertaining Angels (Hebrews 13:2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Saul was Paul (Acts 7:58)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) surmises:

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

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

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

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

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

Reflecting on a Starry Night (Psalm 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fish Story (John 21:11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deborah: Right Man for The Job (Judges 4)

Who was the only woman to judge Israel? Deborah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) explains:

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

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

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

Moses’ Varied Background (Exodus 18:1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoniram The Slave Driver (I Kings 4:6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) explains:

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

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

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

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

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

Stoning Stephen (Acts 6:5)

How was Stephen killed? He was stoned to death

Stephen enters the Biblical text by being elected as one of the first seven deacons (Acts 6:5). It appears he stood out from his peers as he is listed first and is characterized in language typically reserved for prophets - “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5 NASB)”.

The nascent Christian movement was growing rapidly (Acts 6:7) and Stephen’s talents (Acts 6:5, 8) placed him at the forefront. One group’s success is another’s threat and Stephen faced opposition from a contingent of Disapora Jews from the Synagogue of Freedmen (Acts 6:8). Unable to handle the truth or refute it, they convinced some men to serve as false witnesses claiming that Stephen spoke “blasphemous words against Moses and against God (Acts 6:11 NASB).”

Though the resistance began with only a small party it escalated, a riot ensued (Acts 6:14) and the incident culminated with an audience before the high priest (Acts 7:1). Throughout the charges, Stephen remained silent until he faced the high priest and when he finally spoke, he delivered one of the longest speeches in the book of Acts (Acts 7:2-53). The filibuster reviewed “salvation history” (heilsgeschichte) and concluded with the acknowledgment that the religious establishment had a long history of persecuting prophets (Acts 7:52).

The trial transformed into a lynching and Stephen was stoned (Acts 7:58-60), a common method of death in such situations (II Chronicles 24:20-22; Philo (20 BCE-50 CE), Special Laws 1.54-57; Josephus (37-100), Antiquities 14.2.1). Midrash clearly outlines the protocol for stoning (Midrash Sanhedrin 6.1-4) and in the case of Stephen, it was not followed aside from holding the execution outside court in conjunction with Leviticus 24:14. This is because Stephen was a victim of lynching, not capital punishment.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) explains:

The stoning makes clear that they thought Stephen was blaspheming. It should be noted that nothing is said about the high priest offering a verdict, no formal sentence is announced, and nothing here suggests anything other than a lynching, an act of violent passion. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 276)

Stephen’s innocense is highlighted throughout the account. The text claims that “all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel (Acts 6:15 NASB).” As he died, the deacon experienced a theophany (divine appearance) uttering among his famous last words - “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56 NASB).” After asking Jesus to take him and forgive his persecutors, Stephen died (Acts 7:59-60).

Why was Stephen killed? The charge against Stephen was the same Jesus faced - was the rationale the same? Is anyone today in danger of dying for similar reasons? Should contemporary Christians pose a threat to the religious establishment?

Stephen’s death is a turning point in Christian history and the book of Acts. Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) analyzes, “Stephen is a pivotal figure: he anticipates the future success and conflict of the mission among the nations, but his death also puts a close to the Jerusalem narrative (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 112).”

The lynching made Stephen the first Christian martyr. The word “martyr” comes from the Greek martyros meaning “witness”. The man who was murdered because of false witnesses remains a witness centuries after his death. If Stephen’s death was intended to be a deterrent for conversion, the action failed. As Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) wrote, “The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins (Kierkegaard, Papers and Journals, 352).”

To what lengths are you willing to go to for your faith? Are you willing to die? Are you grateful that you don’t live in a region where you need to? Do you respect others who die for their faith whatever that faith may be?

“The prophet and the martyr do not see the hooting throng. Their eyes are fixed on the eternities.” - Benjamin Cardozo (1870-1938)

Don’t Let The Sun Go Down (Ephesians 4:26)

Complete: “Do not let the ___ go down on your anger.” Sun (Ephesians 4:26)

The second half of the book of Ephesians is devoted to refining the believer’s conduct in the world (Ephesians 4:1-6:24). Amongst Paul’s practical advise to his former congregation is the charge to not go to bed angry (Ephesians 4:26).

Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity. (Ephesians 4:26-27 NASB)

The admonition to be angry yet not to sin is a quotation from Psalm 4:5. In the context of Ephesians, Paul is speaking to those who are in a loving community (Ephesians 4:2, 25). When living in community, anger with one another is virtually inevitable. Andrew D. Lester (1939-2010) writes, “Pauline theology recognizes and assumes that Christians, like all human beings, are bound to experience anger (Lester, The Angry Christian: A Theology for Care and Counseling, 144).”

As such, Paul sets a limitation to anger. At some point, anger must be relinquished. As one of American statesman Colin Powell (b. 1937) ’s “13 Rules of Leadership” reads - “Get mad, then get over it.”

The reason for this restriction is clearly stated. One must control anger or else it will control the person angered. If anger is held for too long, it will give the devil a “foothold” (Ephesians 4:27 NIV).

What constructive ways do you deal with your anger - how do you let it go? What is the maddest you have ever been? Have you ever gone to bed angry? Do you feel anger is a sin?

Paul’s advice is not to avoid anger but rather to control it. Anger, if exercised properly, is not a sin. In fact, most read Paul’s assertion to “be angry” (Ephesians 4:26 NASB) as a command rather than a condition. There are some situations in which it would be sinful not to be angry.

Harold W. Hoehner (1935-2009) explains:

“It is necessary to acknowledge that anger is not intrinsically sinful...God expresses anger. What causes God to be angry? When wrong has been done against a person or against God himself. However, when God is angry, he is always in control of his anger. Unlike God, however, people have a tendency to allow anger to control them. Hence, the second command, “do not sin” is necessary. (Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, 621)

In what situation is anger the appropriate response? Have you ever experienced “righteous indignation”?

“Anger, if not restrained, is frequently more hurtful to us than the injury that provokes it.” - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BCE-65 C)

Barsabbas: Always a Bridesmaid (Acts 1:23)

When Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place, who was the losing candidate? Barsabbas Justus

While the disciples were waiting for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:7-8), they occupied their time by electing a new member to fill Judas’ spot in The Twelve (Acts 1:15-26). The criteria for the job was longevity, someone who had been with Jesus since his ministry’s incipience (Acts 1:21-22). As such, the candidates were drawn from Jesus’ wider circle of followers (Luke 10:1-17).

Whether only two candidates qualified or the pool was somehow reduced, two finalists were chosen - “Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus)” and Matthias (Acts 1:23 NASB). (The fact that the author felt the need to supply so many names to identify Barsabbas is a clear tip off he was not going to get the job.) The final decision was made via prayer (Acts 1:24) and casting lots (Acts 1:25-26), a traditional method of determining God’s will in Judaism (Leviticus 16:8; Numbers 26:55-56, 33:54; Joshua 19:1-40; I Chronicles 26:12-16; Jonah 1:7-8; Micah 2:5). The lot fell to Matthias (Acts 1:26).

This incident marks Barsabbas’ only appearance in the New Testament. There is a Judas Barsabbas who appears later in Acts and many have conjectured that the two were brothers (Acts 15:22). According to Eusebius (263-339), Joseph Barsabbas was among the seventy Jesus sent out (Luke 10:1; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1.12). Otherwise little is known of Barsabbas.

Some have speculated that given his later prominence, Paul was God’s choice to be the twelfth disciple and that the eleven remaining disciples jumped the gun in electing a new member.

Were the disciples correct in trying to reconstitute The Twelve? When have you been passed over? How did it make you feel? How do you think Barsabbas felt about this rejection?

Twice Barsabbas could have been selected as one of The Twelve and twice he was overlooked. He lost out on what was presumably a dream job early and when a vacancy became open, the carrot was dangled before him again, providing a glimmer of hope. Just as the light shone in, the door was once again slammed in his face. The second time, he knew how close he was as he made the shortest of short lists. Barsabbas faced rejection publicly amongst his peers and ostensibly the rejection came from God. And no explanation was given. Presuming the disciples’ prayer was answered (Acts 1:24-25), Barsabbas was left knowing only that his exclusion was God’s will.

Barsabbas nor his career is ever referenced again in the New Testament. (Neither is Matthias for that matter.) Tradition tells us that Barsabbas did not become bitter or attempt to manipulate his way into a role of leadership. Papias of Hierapolis (60-130) preserves an oral tradition that states Barsabbas drank poison without harm (Mark 16:18) and the apocryphal Acts of Paul relates that Barsabbas was among a Christian group imprisoned by Nero until a vision of the newly martyred Paul appeared to the emperor, precipitating their immediate release.

Barsabbas could have responded in many ways to his rejection. In his case, it truly was an honor just to be nominated. If tradition is correct, Barsabbas demonstrated the characteristics that merited his being a finalist for the position. It appears that Barsabbas never lost sight of his calling even though he was not called to be one of The Twelve.

What are you called to do? Have you ever held high hopes for a position only to be placed in a less prominent slot? How did you respond? What does your response to rejection say about you?

“There's nothing like rejection to make you do an inventory of yourself.” - James Lee Burke (b. 1936)

Goshen: What Difference...(Exodus 8:22)

What is the name of the area in Egypt in which the Israelites lived? Goshen (Exodus 8:22)

Indebted to the help provided by Joseph, Pharaoh graciously granted the Israelites their own Egyptian settlement, a place called Goshen.

You shall live in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children’s children and your flocks and your herds and all that you have. (Genesis 45:10 NASB)

It has been speculated that Goshen was somewhat isolated from Egypt proper based upon Pharaoh’s comment that “every shepherd is loathsome to the Egyptians (Genesis 46:34 NASB).” Colin J. Humphreys (b. 1941) speculates that the Israelites “lived in their own separate geographic location...which almost certainly was not in the prime property market area next to the highly desirable waters of the Nile, which the Egyptians would have kept for themselves. Thus the ancient Israelites were probably living a few miles away from the Nile and its main branches–close enough to where the Egyptians lived to walk to work, but far away enough away to be a distinct community (Humphreys, The Miracles of Exodus: a Scientist Reveals the Extraordinary Natural Causes Underlying the Biblical Miracles, 146).”

Although not uncontested, in 1885 Swiss Egyptologist Edouard Henri Naville (1844-1926) identified Goshen as the 20th nome of Egypt, located in the eastern Delta, and known as Gesem or Kesem during the Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt (672-525 BCE).

Goshen would become significant several centuries after it was bequeathed to the Israelites when a new ruler who “knew not Joseph” assumed power (Exodus 1:8 KJV). The Egyptians had forgotten the blessing the Israelites had one been and perceiving their increasing numbers as a threat, enslaved them (Exodus 1:9-14).

In the process of liberating the Israelites, God famously sent ten plagues upon Egypt (Exodus 7:14-11:10). The only place unaffected by the disasters was Goshen (Exodus 8:22, 9:26). God spared Goshen while the rest of Egypt suffered. Goshen stood out like a sore thumb or perhaps more accurately as a healthy thumb in a sea of sore thumbs.

Though no longer prevalent, “Land O Goshen” entered the Southern lexicon as an exclamation of amazement or frustration presumably due to the unique qualities it displayed in Exodus.

Have you ever been in an area that was inundated with inclement weather while it was sunny just a few miles down the road? Why does God not always give his followers the reprieve he gave the Israelites?

These were special circumstances. The dramatic difference between Goshen and the rest of Egypt left no doubt as to the reason for the calamity. The enslaved Israelites received sanctuary

While modern day believers may not always receive a reprieve from calamity (Matthew 5:45), they should in some ways be set apart from the world around them.

If you are a believer, in what ways does this make you different than those who do not believe? What difference does your faith make?

Please Don’t Give (Exodus 36:6)

When did people give so much they had to be told to stop? When the tabernacle was being constructed (Exodus 36:6)

In the era between the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land, the Israelites were nomads. In the interim, God outlined specific plans as to the creation of a tabernacle, a portable representation of the divine presence (Exodus 25:9; Acts 7:44). The Israelites’ God would not merely reign distantly from the heavens but was willing to move with them in their uncertainty in the wilderness.

As with all building projects, this venture needed capital. Amazingly, the Israelites gave so much that Moses actually needed to issue an edict to restrain the giving! (Exodus 36:6)

So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, “Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary.” Thus the people were restrained from bringing any more. (Exodus 36:6 NASB)

Over giving was and is a highly unusual problem (and one as pastor I would like to have). Reuven Hammer (b. 1932) quips, “This may be the only instance in the entire history of fund-raising that the campaign was so oversubscribed that it had to be brought to a halt. Never before or after did we have to be told to stop giving (Hammer, Entering Torah: Prefaces to the Weekly Torah Portion, 133).”

Has a religious group ever said no to money? Why did Moses halt the cash flow? Should he have ceased this activity? Could he have not saved the funds for a rainy day? Why did the Israelites give so freely?

The Israelites gave because their hearts were moved to do so (Exodus 35:29). The campaign was successful and the tabernacle was built to specification (Exodus 40:17-19). It was erected exactly one year after leaving Egypt (Exodus 40:17). Throughout much of the preceding year, the Israelites rebelled against Moses (and ostensibly against God), but the building of the tabernacle was one instance where the community united together for a common good.

What projects have you witnessed that united a body of believers? Where do you give? Can you be accused of giving too much?

“Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” - II Corinthians 9:6 NASB

The Church’s 1 Foundation (I Corinthians 3:11)

Complete: For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid ______________.” Which is Jesus

Paul wrote to a divided Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:10-12, 3:3). Its members exhibited varying allegiance to Paul, Apollos, Cephas [Peter] and Christ (I Corinthians 1:12). Paul drew upon the imagery of construction to help ease the tension. He drew them back to the bedrock:

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 3:11 NASB)

Paul reminded the Corinthians that their allegiance was owed to Jesus and not any particular minister as Christ is the foundation. The analogy has stood through the centuries. The Catholic Church teaches, “Often, too, the Church is called the building of God (I Corinthians 3:9). The Lord compared himself to the stones which the builders rejected, but which was made into the corner stone (Matthew 21:42; cf. Acts 4:11; I Peter 2:7; Psalm 118:22). On this foundation the church is built by the apostles (cf. I Corinthians 3:11) and from it the church receives solidarity and unity (The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition, 216).”

When updating a building, it is essential to do so in deference to the structure’s foundation. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) summarizes, “The superstructure of the building (church) must conform to the pattern of that foundation. Otherwise it would be crooked and unstable (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 54).” Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) adds strongly, “Any other foundation would not merely make the building precarious, it would cease to exist as that building (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 310).”

What is the foundation of your spiritual belief structure? What are the non-negotiables of your faith?

The division that the Corinthians church experienced two thousand years ago has characterized much of Christian history. In dealing with conflict, Paul points back to the foundation, the unifying principle - namely Jesus.

If you believe that a man died, was raised and because of that you have been granted salvation, what other common ground is needed? Are there any branches of Christianity’s tree that should not be able to cooperate with one another? If so, under what circumstances?

“Christ was called the foundation-stone (I Corinthians 3:11) because he bears everything and holds it.” - John Chrysostom (347-407), “My Father’s Working Still”

What to Pray? (Romans 8:26)

Who intercedes for us when we do not know how to pray as we ought? The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26)

In Romans, Paul readily admits that there are times in which the Christian does not know what to pray (Romans 8:26). He then encourages the reader by informing that help is readily available:

In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27 NASB)

Paul was so adept at prayer that his prayers led to an out of body experience (II Corinthians 12:1-4) yet even Paul confessed to not always knowing what to pray.

In these instances, the Holy Spirit intercedes on behalf of the intercessor (Romans 8:26-27). The word used for “intercede” in Romans 8:26, huperentugchano, is a compound word comprised of huper (“over” or “on behalf of”) and entugchano ( “to turn to” or “to appeal”). It is a legal term used to express what an attorney does when speaking on behalf of a client and carries with it a connotation of “to make petition” or “to plead on behalf of another”. As the word is only used in Romans 8:26, it is never used of humans but rather only of the Holy Spirit. A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) explains that huperentugchano is “a picturesque word of rescue by one who ‘happens on’..one who is in trouble and ‘in his behalf’ pleads with ‘unuttered groanings’... or with ‘sighs that baffle words (Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, 377).’” God is like a seasoned dentist who can interpret even our “groanings” when no one else can.

When have you wanted to pray but not known what to pray for? Why do we not know what to pray?

One of the keys to prayer is to align the intercessor’s desires with God’s. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus prays “your [God’s] will be done” (Matthew 6:10 NASB). Praying God’s will is often easier said than said as sometimes we do not know what God’s will is. Commenting on Romans 8:26-27, Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) reminds “our failure to know God’s will and consequent inability to petition God specifically and assuredly is met by God’s Spirit, who himself expresses to God those intercessory petitions that perfectly match the will of God (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT), 526).”

Our uncertainty when praying does not mean we should not pray or even that our prayers will be ineffective. Stormie Omartian (b. 1943) simplifies, “The Holy Spirit guides our prayers so that they are aligned with the will of God, and that makes them far more powerful and effective (Omartian, The Power of a Praying Life).”

What situations have you been in where you honestly did not know God’s will? Did you sense the Spirit interceding on your behalf?

“We don’t have to know how to pray in order to pray; we just need to know whom we seek.” - Janet Holm McHenry (b. 1951), Daily PrayerWalk: Meditations for a Deeper Prayer Life), p. 120

The Prophet Who Lost His Head (II Kings 6)

Who lost a head of an ax in a stream? The sons of the prophet (II Kings 6:5, 6)

In the midst of a series of miraculous stories featuring Elisha, the prophet made iron float (II Kings 6:1-7). Though living in a tumultuous time spiritually, Elisha was developing a following, so much so that the prophets had a housing problem. There was not enough room for all of them (II Kings 6:1). (This is a good problem to have.) Elisha accepted his protégés’ recommendation and agreed to join them in building a new settlement along the Jordan River (II Kings 6:2-3).

While cutting trees, one of Elisha’s pupils’ ax heads plunged into the river (II Kings 6:4). The fact that the tool had been borrowed made matters worse. The (literally) poor man turned to Elisha and explained his plight, presumably to evoke empathy, not a miracle (II Kings 6:5).

Mark Batterson (b. 1969) writes:

Notice the verb tense. This apprentice uses the past tense. As far as he’s concerned, this ax head is gone. It reminds me of one of Jack Handey’s deep thoughts: If you drop your keys in a river of molten lava, let ’em go man, ’cause they're gone! If you drop your iron ax head in the river, let it go man, ’cause it's gone! (Batterson, In A Pit With A Lion On A Snowy Day, 31)

Undeterred, Elisha asked where the ax head fell and successfully defied the laws of nature by throwing a stick where his student indicated which signaled the iron to float (II Kings 6:6). The story ends with the prophet instructing his pupil to procure the lost object (II Kings 6:7). The narrator supplies neither explanation nor interpretation. The story ends with no moral, object lesson, life application or even a suggestion to be more prudent.

In many ways, the story is typical as Elisha often saved his fellow prophets from physical want or financial disaster (II Kings 4:1-7, 38-41, 42-44) and Elisha stories often involve water (II Kings 2:18-22, 3:16-20, 5:10-14, 6:1-7). The two halves of the story are unified by the term: maqowm. This word is used for both the “place” where the prophets wish to build (II Kings 6:1, 2) and the “place” where the ax head fell (II Kings 6:6) The floating iron verifies the prophet’s true identity - what Elisha does can only be done by God working through him.

The story’s trainee prophet is in a difficult position. As evidenced by the fact that he had to borrow the tools, he was poor. The law was clear - he would be obligated to make restitution for the lost tool (Exodus 22:13-14). He likely could not. It was the Iron Age and an ax head represented the height of technological achievement. Unlike copper and bronze, iron had to be molded while hot which required a significant amount of fuel. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) summarizes, “iron was expensive in Bible times and the student-prophet was very poor (Hubbard, First and Second Kings (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 157).” The student prophet became another in a long line of poor, hard working religious workers who could not afford to lose a borrowed tool.

Have you ever borrowed anything you could not afford to replace? Have you ever lost or damaged a borrowed item? When has God bailed you out of a predicament as is the case with this young prophet?

Though the event meant a great deal to Elisha’s student, the episode is strikingly mundane. Commentaries devote little space to it. It is overshadowed by most all of the incidents that precede it: saving a widow and her son from slavery (II Kings 4:1-7), raising a child back to life (II Kings 4:8-36) and curing a Syrian of leprosy (II Kings 5:1-27). Retrieving an ax seems insignificant in comparison. If Elisha were going to utilize divine power, why not simply erect a structure for the prophets?

Critics might even say that Elisha exploits his divinely granted power for pedestrian purposes. The incident is nothing if not a miraculous. Though a few have speculated that Elisha thrust the pole into the water to spear the ax head through the haft-hole or that he simply maneuvered the ax head into shallower waters this was certainly not the author’s intent. Iron, like any mineral with a density greater than one gram per cubic centimeter, does not float. (The density of cast iron is approximately 7.2 grams per cubic centimeter). Elisha performed a miracle in making an iron ax head buoyant. Was this incident worthy of a miracle?

Perhaps the triviality of the story is its significance. Batterson concluded, “God is great not just because nothing is too big for him. God is great because nothing is too small for him either (Batterson, 32).”

In 1980, William J. Krutza (b. 1929) published a book entitled How Much Prayer Should a Hamburger Get?.

How much prayer should a hamburger get? Do you ever opt not to pray for something because it seems too inconsequential? Is anything too trivial to pray about? If something bothers you, why would you not take it to God (Philippians 4:6-7; I Peter 5:7)? How many ax heads lie lifelessly upon river bottoms because no one attempted to retrieve them?

“God may not play dice but he enjoys a good round of Trivial Pursuit every now and again.” - Federico Fellini (1920-1993)

Nile River: Blood is Thicker... (Exodus 7)

Which river did Moses turn to blood with his rod? The Nile

During the Exodus, God sent ten plagues upon Egypt (Exodus 7:14-Exodus 11:10). The first plague occurred when Moses raised his staff over the Nile River at God’s request to transform the river’s water into blood (Exodus 7:14-25). The results were immediate and palpable: “The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt (Exodus 7:21 NASB).”

Many scholars have identified the blood of the first plague with the red silt that characterizes the Nile during its flooding season. Werner Keller (1909-1980) is representative of this rationalistic approach, writing, “Deposits from the Abyssinian lakes often color the flood waters a dark reddish brown, especially in the Upper Nile. That might well be said to look like ‘blood’ (Keller, The Bible As History, 120).”

While this explanation is prevalent, it does not fit the tone of the Biblical account. The text explicitly claims that what was once water was now blood (Exodus 7:17-20) and elsewhere the Bible uses language for water that merely appears to be blood (II Kings 3:22). Further, the natural phenomena that affects the Nile is a gradual transformation, commonly seen as a blessing by the natives, not the immediate curse seen in the text (Exodus 7:18, 21). Silting also does not typically result in the death of fish or produce a stench (Exodus 7:18, 21). The Biblical phenomena actually extended beyond the river to water in “vessels of wood and in vessels of stone (Exodus 7:19 NASB).” As such, the Biblical account goes to great lengths to present a supernatural event.

Do you prefer the natural or supernatural reading of the first plague? Why? Why do you think that the assault on Egypt began with contaminating the water supply?

The Nile was synonymous with Egypt and served as the source of life or disaster for civilizations in Northeast Africa. The Egyptians regarded the Nile’s annual flooding as a manifestation of the god Osiris. In attacking the water, the text pits God against god. The Nile was also where Pharaoh had decreed that all newborn Hebrew males be cast into the river (Exodus 1:22) and attacking it carries a sense of poetic justice.

In areas where it is readily available, one can easily forget just how important water is. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) said “Water is the driving force of all nature.” As can be seen by the death of the wildlife (Exodus 7:18, 21), water affects an entire ecosystem. Water is so important that many scholars have speculated that the other nine plagues represent a chain reaction stemming from the contaminated water source.

Over large parts of the world, humans have inadequate access to potable water. Water.org reports:

• 884 million people lack access to safe water supplies; approximately one in eight people.
• 3.575 million people die each year from water-related disease.
• The water and sanitation crisis claims more lives through disease than any war claims through guns.
• People living in the slums often pay 5-10 times more per liter of water than wealthy people living in the same city.
• An American taking a five-minute shower uses more water than a typical person in a developing country slum uses in a whole day.

How would your life change without access to water? Are you thankful that you live in an area that has water? How can you assist those without water?

“Thousands have lived without love, not one without water.” - W. H. Auden (1907-1973)

Enoch: Gone Without a Trace (Genesis 5:24)

Of whom is it said, “He walked with God and he was not?” Enoch (Genesis 5:24)

In the genealogy of Seth, a character named Enoch breaks up the monotonous formulae (Genesis 5:21-24). Enoch appears in Genesis as the seventh of the ten pre-flood patriarchs, the great grandfather of Noah. His father Jared is the second oldest man in the Bible (962, Genesis 5:20) and his son Methuselah is the oldest (969, Genesis 5:27). Instead of announcing Enoch’s death, instead the text mysteriously reads that “he was not” (Genesis 5:24 NASB):

Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah. Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. (Genesis 5:21-24 NASB)

Enoch’s absence is described in two ways: 1. He was not. 2. God took him. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) surmised that the second clause “is certainly a later statement, an attempt to ‘rationalize’ (Westermann, 358).” The anomaly of his earthly exit elevates Enoch among the ten descendants of Noah and makes him one of only two Biblical characters to not experience natural death (Genesis 5:23-24; II Kings 2:1-14).

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) speculates that “Enoch’s age corresponds to the 365 days in a solar year, suggesting completeness (Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1- 11:26, 315).” The key is that Enoch’s shortened life is not indicative of punishment but is rather honorific.

In the genealogical prescription, where his predecessors were said to have “lived”, Enoch instead “walked with God”. Some commentators emphasize that the only other character the Bible explicitly says walked with God is Noah (Genesis 6:9) though Abraham walked “before” God (Genesis 17:1, 24:40). For the psalmist to walk before God indicated life and prosperity (Psalms 56:13-14, 116:9). The expression to walk with God is reminiscent of Adam’s initial state of being (Genesis 3:8).

Given the rarity of Enoch’s departure from the earth, it would seem that it is significant.

Why do you think Enoch did not need die? What does it mean to “walk with God”? Are you walking with God or are you just living? What is the connection between sin and death?

Enoch is remembered as an exemplar of righteousness (Sirach 44:16, 49:14; Wisdom of Solomon 4:10; I Clement 9:3). Sirach states, “Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, an example of repentance to all generations. (Sirach 44:16 NRSV).”

After Christianity and Judaism had separated, the prevailing view regarding Enoch was that Enoch had such close communion with God that he received a reprieve from death. He appears three times in the New Testament (Luke 3:37; Hebrews 11:5; Jude 1:14-15) including being listed in the “hall of faith” (Hebrews 11:5). In contrast, a Jewish view of Enoch claims that he was he was the only pious man of his time and was taken away before he could become corrupted.

An entire mythology sprang from Enoch’s brief account in Genesis. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) stated, “The passage, to be sure, gives the impression of being only a brief reference to a much more extensive tradition (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 71).”

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) adds:

The main reading in tradition does not concern obedience (which is presumed) but privileged entry into the secrets of God. Thus, Enoch subsequently became a clustering point for apocalyptic traditions. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 68).

Enoch is nothing if not mysterious. Brueggeman concludes, “Even in this terse form, it reflects that Enoch represents some role in overcoming the utter discontinuity of God and humankind (Brueggemann, 69).”

Enoch is a glimpse of the future restored relationship between God and huamnity.

Where do you think Enoch was taken? Why? Would you want to be taken by God? Which is scarier to you a “natural” or “unnatural” exit from the earth?

“And like that, poof. He’s gone.” - Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey [b. 1959]), The Usual Suspects (1995)

Satan, a Roaring Lion (I Peter 5:8)

Who described Satan as a roaring lion? Peter (I Peter 5:8)

I Peter encourages steadfastness and perseverance in the face of persecution (I Peter 1:1–2:10). In its closing advice, the letter warns to guard against the devil (I Peter 5:8). The letter draws on Old testament imagery and compares Satan to a lion (Psalms 22:13; Amos 3:8). The lion was a symbol of power, the king of the beasts (Proverbs 30:30) and an instrument of death (Daniel 6:16-28).

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings. (I Peter 5:8-9 NASB)

I Peter 5:8-9 has been part of the Compline (or Night Prayer), the final church service (or Office) of the day among Catholics, for centuries.

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) explains:

The devil roars like a lion to induce fear in the people of God. In other words, persecution is the roar by which he tries to intimidate believers in hopes that they will capitulate at the prospect of suffering. If believers deny their faith, then the devil has devoured them, bringing them back into his fold...The roaring of the devil is the crazed anger of a defeated enemy, and if they do not fear his ferocious bark, they will never be consumed by his bite. (Schreiner, The New American Commentary, Volume 37 - I and II Peter, Jude, 242)

If Satan were an animal, what animal would the devil be? Why? (Yes I just asked that.) In what ways is the devil like a lion?

Wayne A. Grudem (b. 1948) writes, “The metaphor is apt, for a prowling lion attacks suddenly, viciously, and often when its unsuspecting victim is engaged in routine activities (Grudem, 1 Peter (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 196).”

Lions do not hunt indiscriminately but rather use a highly calculated method. They choose the coolest hours to hunt which is linked to energy conservation since their hearts are relatively small. Lions usually seek prey under a cover of night and the moonless part of the night is preferred. Lions hunt less during the day due to the heat and the probability of being spotted by their prey. When they do hunt during the day, their best opportunity for making a kill is when they encounter a lone animal who is caught by surprise. They methodically stalk the prey moving closer inch by inch and strike when the animal lowers its head to graze.

Once a lion has selected its prey, it will sprint to it and attempt to grab hold of it. As lions are not endurance runners, they usually need to be within 20 yards of their quarries. Killing is generally done in two stages, first, bringing the animal down, then completing the kill. Many animals who are seemingly successful in escaping a lion’s advances die later from lacerations. Most deaths at the paws of lions occur through suffocation as a single lion will often crush its victim’s windpipe. After a success, unlike most other cats, lions prefer to eat crouching or lying down. A lion will then gorge itself, if possible, on any given kill.

Interestingly, the prey seldom struggles after it is brought down, perhaps due to the shock of being caught. Although it may seem that lions attempt to “humanely” dispatch their prey, they actually selfishly prefer quick kills so that they will be able to dine sooner.

In comparing the devil to a ravenous lion, I Peter paints the image of a calculating predator. In response to this threat, the epistle repeats its previous commands to be self controlled or “sober” (I Peter 1:13, 4:7, 5:8) and adds that the Christian need always be alert.

In what ways are you guarding against Satan?

“Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.” - Ephesians 6:11 NASB

Don’t Count Your Chickens (Proverbs 27:1)

Complete this Proverb: “Do not boast about tomorrow, for ____________________________________________.” You do not know what a day may bring forth (Proverbs 27:1)

Proverbs 27:1-22 constitutes a unit of sayings (Proverbs 27:1-22). Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) explains that this section of Proverbs “is a relecture of once isolated proverbs. As such, its proverbs can be interpreted both individually and as part of a whole. For example, its frame in light of the whole composition features the necessity of friends praising each another (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (NICOT), 372).” The unit begins by admonishing against self praise, namely future successes. It echoes the modern saying “don’t count your chickens before they are hatched.”

Do not boast about tomorrow,
For you do not know what a day may bring forth. (Proverbs 27:1 NASB)

Humans cannot boast of tomorrow because it overshoots their capacity. One of the limitations of the human condition is an inadequate knowledge of the future. No triumph is assured. There is a famous Yiddish saying that captures the tone of this proverb - Man tracht und Gott lacht - humans plan and God laughs.

How would you rewrite this proverb in your own words? When you think of the future, does it excite or scare you? Or both?

While boasting of the future is discouraged, the inverse is also true. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

“So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matthew 6:30 NASB)

Our limited knowledge of the future also means that hopelessness is as foolish as bravado. John Claypool (1930-2005) consistently reminded his congregation that “despair is presumptuous”.

As an old rabbi once said to me, “Despair is presumptuous. It is saying something about the future that we have no right to say. If God can make the things that are out of the things that are not, and can make dead things come to life again, who are we to set limits on what that kind of potency might yet do with what we have done?” (Claypool, God The Ingenious Alchemist: Transforming Tragedy Into Blessing, 21)

What can we say for certain about tomorrow? What is the proper attitude towards tomorrow?

“Today was good. Today was fun.
Tomorrow is another one.”
- Dr. Seuss (1904-1991), One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish

David’s Bromance (II Samuel 1:26)

Who was David’s best friend? Jonathan

Only two men in Scripture are explicitly said to be the friend of David: Hushai (II Samuel 15:37, 16:16-17; I Chronicles 27:33) and Hiram (I Kings 5:1). Both of these men were actually Gentiles which may be why it was found necessary to state that they were friends of the king.

The language when referring to the relationship between David and King Saul’s son Jonathan is stronger than friendship. The first time they are seen together, the narrator informs “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself (I Samuel 18:1 NASB).” In fact, the two even made a covenant with one another (I Samuel 18:3, 19:8, 16, 22:8, 23:18). Jonathan even sided with his friend when his father unjustly sought to eliminate David (I Samuel 19:1-7, 20:1-29).

Proverbs claims:

A man of too many friends comes to ruin,
But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. (Proverbs 18:24 NASB)

David and Jonathan were friends who stuck closer than brothers. At Jonathan’s death, David eulogized:

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me.
Your love to me was more wonderful
Than the love of women. (II Samuel 1:26 NASB)

Why do you think David and Jonathan bonded so tightly? Who is your best friend? Were you to get married today, which friends would serve as your wedding party? In your opinion, what makes someone a true friend?

Jonathan repeatedly demonstrated his love for David, consistently showing that he loved David as himself (I Samuel 18:1). Jonathan frequently assisted David in fleeing his father’s murderous advances. He was a big part of the mechanism by which David became king. Had David not become king, Jonathan himself would have ruled. Jonathan chose friendship over the kingdom.

The Mishnah expounds:

Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan. (Avot 5:15)

When have you placed your friends above yourself? How did you meet your friends? Do you think God was involved in the process?

“A true friend never gets in your way unless you happen to be going down.” - Arnold H. Glasow (1905-1998)