The Silence of God (Habakkuk 2:20)

In what minor prophet does this appear: “the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silent before him”? Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:20)

The first two of Habakkuk’s three chapters consist of a dialogue between the prophet (Habakkuk 1:1-4, 1:12-2:1) and God (Habakkuk 1:5-11, 2:2-20). Habakkuk is unique in that he has the audacity to openly question the Almighty. First, the prophet is upset with God’s presumed indifference in the face of clear injustice (Habakkuk 1:2-4) and then he objects to the action God is taking (Habakkuk 1:12-2:1). God has seemingly sided with idolaters.

God responds by assuring Habakkuk that the perpetrators will face repercussions in the form of five woes (Habakkuk 2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19). The discourse concludes addressing the absurdity of idolatrous worship (Habakkuk 2:18-20). God gets the final word in the conversation, reassuring:

“But the Lord is in His holy temple.
Let all the earth be silent before Him.” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB)

Contrary to popular belief and despite the apparent silence, God is in fact on the job. Yahweh is not a helpless bystander but is rather perched in a position of power ready to act.

Specifically God “is in His holy temple” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB). The temple in question likely indicates a broader spiritualized definition not limited to the Jerusalem temple (Micah 5:2).

Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) notes:

From early times the earthly sanctuary was believed to be a replica of the sanctuary of heaven. That the heavenly temple is in view here is suggested by the similar words of Psalm 11:4: “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven”...It is from his heavenly throne that “his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind” (Psalm 11:4); all human beings are therefore called upon to do him reverence. (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 876)

O. Palmer Robertson (b. 1937) defines:

The temple, from the time of its dedication by Solomon, was established as the source from which divine instruction and help would go forth. Even if God should have to chasten disobedient people, the consecrated temple would remain as the place where God would hear, forgive, and teach his people the good way (I Kings 8:36)...The temple stood in the midst of Israel as the place of his presence and his lordship among his people. The term for temple (hekal seldom describes the palace of an earthly king in Scripture. But it appears in a succession of narratives as the place from which God would rule in Israel, including the tabernacle in Shiloh (I Samuel 1:9, 3:3), Solomon’s temple (I Kings 6:1-2; etc.), Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 41:1, 4, 15); and the temple constructed after the restoration from exile (Zechariah 8:9; Haggai 2:15, 18). From a new covenant perspective, the equivalent concept is applied to the body of Jesus Christ (John 2:19), the body of the individual Christian (I Corinthians 3:16-17), and the corporate community of the Christian church (Ephesians 2:21)...The essence of the idea of the Lord’s temple may be seen in the declaration in the book of Revelation concerning the absence of the temple in the new heavens and new earth. The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will be the temple of the new Jerusalem (Revelation 22:21). The presence of God and Christ shall so permeate the final city that no need shall exist for a temple building. (Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 210-11)

The prophet’s truest encouragement comes from God’s very identity. Like Job (Job 42:1-6), Habakkuk needs to see God not only for what God does but who God is.

God’s capability is juxtaposed with the ineptitude of false idols who say and do nothing. Waylon Bailey (b. 1948) exclaims:

What a contrast! The idol sits where it is put without the ability to hear or to respond, but the Lord resides by his almighty power in his holy temple ready to respond to the needs of his people...The verse pictures the contrast between those who are no gods and the one who is in heaven ready to respond to human need and to human questions. Habakkuk himself knew from experience that he could take his questions to God’s temple in heaven. (Kenneth L. Barker [b. 1931] and Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuh, Zephaniah (The New American Commentary), 349)

James Bruckner (b. 1957) concurs:

In Habakkuk 2:19 created wood and stone are worshiped but are silent when asked for guidance. But created wood and stone will speak by Yahweh’s word (Habakkuk 2:11). They will be God’s witnesses against those who have trusted in them and made them with unjust profits, at the expense of the earth, towns, and others’ blood (Habakkuk 2:8). (Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The NIV Application Commentary), 234)

In spite all of the nation’s misfortune, God is not powerless. The idolaters have not won.

Habakkuk’s critique can be paraphrased by the question “Where are you?” The answer is that God is seated where the Almighty is supposed to be; where Yahweh has always been.

What does Habakkuk need from God? How does God respond to those needs? What do you need from God? Is it acceptable to challenge God like the prophet? Have you, like Habakkuk, ever wondered where God was amidst gross injustice? Do you believe that God is active in the world? Where do you picture God residing?

The conversation ends abruptly as, given God’s position, the text admonishes to “be silent” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT), “keep silent” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or simply “quiet” (MSG). The word (Hebrew: hacah) is actually more forceful. It is an onomatopoeic interjection that can be pronounced, in Hebrew, much like the English “Hush!”

This command is given to all the earth (Habakkuk 2:20), not just Judah (his followers). This audience includes the prophet. The question and answer portion of the program has concluded. The prophet who thought that God was silent is himself silenced by the Almighty.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) comments:

The final statement in Habakkuk 2:20 points once again to YHWH as the ultimate power of the universe by calling for silence throughout the entire earth as YHWH’s presence is manifested in the holy Temple...Such a call for silence appears also in Zephaniah 1:7, Zechariah 2:13; and Psalm 46:10, and appears to accompany a theophany in which YHWH’s presence is manifested in the Temple. Priests performing the sacrifices and other rituals of the Temple worked in silence before YHWH’s presence, indicated by the opening of the doors of the Temple to expose the Holy of Holies where the ark resided (see I Kings 8:1-11), because human voices are not able to replicate the divine speech of the angels who serve YHWH in the heavenly realm. The metaphor of silence indicates a demonstration of respect for YHWH, and coneys the “otherness” of holy divine speech by the angels who praise YHWH in the heavens. (The Twelve Prophets (Vol. 2): Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam), 478)

David Prior (b. 1940) denotes the fitting conclusion:

Habakkuk 2:20’s imperious summons to silence in the presence of the one true God is an apt conclusion to the questioning of the prophet, the agonizing of the people and the chattering of the pagans before their idols. It also marks the only appropriate way to respond to the LORD’s pronunciation of five woes on Babylon. There is nothing more to say or be said. In the light of God’s word of judgment, it is right that ‘every mouth...be stopped’ (Romans 3:19). (Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah & Habakkuk (Bible Speaks Today), 260)

Ironically, the command to silence evokes praise. Though a gap (in which the prophet could reflect in silence) may exist between chapters 2 and 3, the book continues and concludes with a psalm of praise (Habakkuk 3:1-19) addressed to the Lord who saves his people (Habakkuk 3:13). Habakkuk’s final chapter sits in stark contrast to the book’s first two units, evidence that God’s affirmation has had a profound effect on the prophet.

Habakkuk 2:20 marks the bridge from despair to praise. James D. Newsome (b. 1931) pinpoints:

The whole of the psalm in Habakkuk 3 resonates to the nature of God as a transcendent and awe-inspiring Deity. But there is a special sense in which Habakkuk 2:20 has communicated to generations of Jews and Christians the reverence and respect due to God, especially in moments of worship. (Newsome, The Hebrew Prophets, 99)

Do you find God’s words to Habakkuk assuring (Habakkuk 2:2-20)? Has God ever converted your complaints into worship? Why does God silence Habakkuk? Is there a place for silence in communal worship? When are you silent before God?

“Silent solitude makes true speech possible and personal. If I am not in touch with my own belovedness, then I cannot touch the sacredness of others. If I am estranged from myself, I am likewise a stranger to others.” - Brennan Manning (b. 1934), Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging, p. 58

Anna’s Anticipation (Luke 2:36)

Who was the widow who recognized Jesus when he was presented as the temple? Anna (Luke 2:36)

At the time of Jesus’ birth, few recognized that he would be the instrument of Israel’s redemption. Though the infant does nothing demonstrable, when Jesus is presented at the temple (Luke 2:22-24), two great witnesses emerge: Simeon (Luke 2:25-32) and Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The early witness of these elders is often overlooked when recounting Jesus’ life, even being omitted from the 2006 movie The Nativity Story.

Anna is not referenced in any other book of the Bible, much less extrabiblical materials. Though her story constitutes only three verses, Anna gets the last word in Luke’s infancy narrative (Luke 2:36-38).

And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38 NASB)

Even as an infant, Jesus’ mission is recognized. Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) summarizes:

The truth of Simeon’s prophetic witness is confirmed by Anna, a devout prophetess of advanced age...Being a woman with the gift of prophecy who lives in the temple area continually in prayer and fasting, she...comes to the scene precisely where and when Jesus is being presented. She thanks God and witnesses about the child to all who have kept alive hope for “the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). Jerusalem and with it the temple represent the whole of Israel’s hope before God. And Jesus will return to Jerusalem because, as these two have testified, God is leading Israel to the Messiah, just as God is giving the Messiah to Israel. But Jesus will weep over the city because it did not recognize the time of the messianic visitation (Luke 19:41-44). (Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 40)

Balancing a male witness with a female counterpart is characteristic of Luke. Neal M. Flanagan (1920-1985) identifies 13 man-woman parallel stories in Luke’s gospel (Flanagan, “The Position of Women in the Writings of St. Luke”, Mareanum 40, 288-304). In Luke-Acts, women are paired with men even when, as in the case of Anna (Luke 2:36-38) and Philip’s four prophetess daughters mentioned alongside Agabus (Acts 21:9-11), they add nothing to what has been said.

Both Simeon and Anna are models of piety and devotion (Luke 2:25, 36-37) making Anna a reliable corroborating witness. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) compares:

As a counterpart to Simeon, Luke introduces Anna. Both are prophetic figures (cf. Acts 2:17-18), aged, pious, related to the temple, and among those who await eschatological salvation. And both recognize in Jesus the advent of God’s redemptive intervention in the world, with the result that they praise God. In this way, Anna’s testimony is added to that of the angels (Luke 2:10-14) and Simeon (Luke 2:28-35), who respond to the wondrous child by praising God and interpreting the significance of Jesus’ coming. Focusing as they all do on God and on eschatological hope, however, they bear witness to Luke’s interest in a narrative aim that transcends the birth and manifestation of Jesus. Luke is concerned preeminently with the redemptive purposes of God, grounded ultimately in God’s own designs, expressed in the Scriptures, anticipated by the faithful of Israel, now coming to fruition in the arrival of Jesus. In the present scene, Luke actually devotes more time to emphasizing Anna’s reliability than to her reaction, a further attempt to render unimpeachable her testimony concerning Jesus. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 150)

As Green alludes, Luke provides a striking amount of information about Anna. Though the gospel does not specify what she actually said, more introduction is given her than Simeon.

Anna’s comprehensive resume includes the following details:

• She is a woman. Anna appears only in Luke and among the gospels, Luke pays special attention to women (43 references).
• She is a prophetess. Though she is the only woman in the gospels described as a prophetess, the description is not uncommon in Scripture (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; II Kings 22:14; Nehemiah 6:14; Luke 2:35; Acts 2:17, 21:8-9; I Corinthians 11:5).
• She is named Anna. In the Apocrypha, this is the name of Tobit’s wife (Tobit 1:9, 20, 2:1, 11-14, 4:3-4, 5:18-6:1, 10:4-7, 11:5-6, 9, 14:12). The name is the female equivalent of John (Johannah) and the Greek version of the Hebrew, Hannah. Despite being Biblical the name was not popular during the Second Temple period. Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) notes, “Of the 247 Jewish women in Palestine from the period 330 BCE-200 CE, whose names are known, our Anna is the only one who bears this name (Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, 92).” In Jewish tradition, her namesake Hannah is also considered a prophetess (b. Meg 14a). As both women are depicted as praying in the temple and there are similarities between the presentations of Jesus and Hannah’s son Samuel (I Samuel 1:22-24; Luke 2:22), many have seen an intentional allusion. As Anna is “looking for the redemption of Israel” (Luke 2:38 NASB), both the barren Hannah and Anna are praying for miracle babies.
• She is the daughter of Phanuel. Phanuel is otherwise unknown and the only other biblical figure with this name is equally obscure (I Chronicles 4:4). Phanuel is not important enough to be listed anywhere else and as such, being the daughter of Phanuel was of no great consequence. The name Phanuel is the equivalent of place name Peniel (Genesis 32:31-32). As both Anna and her father have Biblical names, it can be deduced that she comes from a godly heritage. Anna inherits a spiritual legacy and builds upon it.
• She is from the tribe of Asher. This detail likely seemed as remote then as it does now as Asher was one of the ten “lost” northern tribes of Israel (Genesis 30:12-13, 35:26) which settled in northern Gilead (Joshua 19:24-31). Anna retains her ancestral heritage. In fact, she is not referenced in connection to her deceased husband, but rather to her people to whom she presumably has a stronger connection. Given that she waited for decades in the temple it is not surprising that Anna can trace her genealogy. Most have attached no significance to the connection to Asher as Luke is typically more interested in symbolism than geography (whom his audience would not have known). In his article “Anna of the Tribe of Asher”, however, Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) argues that the original audience would have understood Anna as a returnee from the exile of the northern tribes in Media. Others have seen this reference as alluding to the restoration of all of the tribes of Israel. Asher is one of the least significant tribes and this coupled with her unsubstantial father may collectively speak to humble origins, like Gideon (Judges 6:15). The world would have viewed Anna’s heritage as insignificant, a fact which was equally insignificant to God.
• She is elderly. Her age is emphasized by redundancy in Greek which reads “she was very old in her many days” or “she was exceedingly old and full of years”. In her culture, her agedness would have merited respect. The text is ambiguous regarding her exact age. It could mean that she was eighty-four or that she has been a widow for eighty-four years. The more natural way to interpret the syntax is the latter (Darrell L. Bock [b. 1953], Luke [BECNT], 1:251-52; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], Luke [NIGTC], 123-24). If this is the case, and she was married at the standard age of 14, she would have been 105 years old. This fits both the improbable nature of the nativity and Luke’s emphasis on her agedness and would also connect her to Judith, another widow who served God night and day (Judith 8:1-8, 11:17) and lived to be 105 years old (Judith 16:23). Either way, Anna is at least 84. One is never too old to serve or experience God in dramatic fashion. In Anna’s case, her greatest contribution comes at the end of her life.
• She is a widow. Three widows are featured in Luke’s gospel (Luke 2:36-38, 7:11-15, 21:1-4) and the evangelist also includes a widow as the star of a parable (Luke 18:1-8). A later description of Christian widows shares marked similarities with the description of Anna (I Timothy 5:3-16). Tragically, Anna’s husband died just seven years into their marriage (Luke 2:37). She presumably had no children and chose not to remarry. Instead, she devoted herself to God. When faced with tragedy, one has the choice to move closer or farther away from God. Instead of getting bitter, Anna got better.
• She never leaves the temple. Serving “night and day” reflects the Jewish belief that the day began at sunset (Deuteronomy 28:66; I Kings 8:29; Isaiah 27:3; Jeremiah 14:17; Mark 5:5; Luke 2:37; Acts 20:31, 26:7; I Thessalonians 2:9, 3:10; II Thessalonians 3:8; I Timothy 5:5; II Timothy 1:3). It is theoretically possible that she resides in the temple’s women’s court but there is no precedent for this arrangement. Like the English expression “all of the time”, Luke is most likely using hyperbole as women were not normally allowed to stay in temple at night. Widows were typically poor and practically speaking, the temple may have been the best place for Anna. Then again, perhaps her devotion and expectation were such that she never leaves the temple precincts. Whatever her reasons, she is a fixture at the temple. Luke likely intends to accent her piety. Later tradition asserts that Mary herself was raised in the temple (Protoevangelium of James 7:1-8:2). Depending upon one’s perspective, Anna is living a life of worship or is a religious fanatic. Either way, Anna has found her niche. Though no priest notices the baby Jesus, someone associated with organized religion takes notice and though Anna could not go into the Holy of Holies she sees God in person.
• She fasts and prays. These are classic expressions of piety. Fasting coupled with prayer is evidence of self-denying focus (Psalm 35:13; Daniel 9:3; Tobit 12:8, Matthew 17:21; Luke 2:37). As the third traditional good work of almsgiving is not mentioned, some have deduced that Anna was poor, fitting her status as a widow. Some interpreters suggest that the story of the widow’s mite near the end of Luke’s gospel (Luke 21:1-4) is best read while remembering the poor widow at the gospel’s outset (Luke 2:36-38). Anna likely prays for “the redemption of Israel”. This expression comes from Isaiah 52:9 and a similar phrase was used on Jewish coins in Bar-Kokhba’s Jewish revolt against Rome (132-136 CE).

Luke stresses Anna’s age and single minded devotion. Anna does not lead a very complicated life. She never goes anywhere. Her singular focus is the service and worship of God. She is part of the remnant that is still actively seeking the Messiah. Anna is a throwback to a bygone era whose unwavering faith is likely as rare as being from her long lost tribe.

Jane J. Parkerton (b. 1946), K. Jeanne Person (b. 1962) and Anne Winchell Silver (b. 1948) examine:

Why is she there? What does she seek? What is it about the life and worship of the Temple that sustain her?...On a practical level, we might understand Anna’s proximity to the Temple as her only means for daily survival. Because she has no husband or child, and because she is elderly, she is among the most economically vulnerable of her society. She is no longer physically able to glean the agricultural fields for leftover grains and fruits, as poor widows were legally permitted to do in order not to starve. Her life may depend on alms she might receive from pilgrims visiting the temple...Anna’s story, however, is not manifestly about a widow’s economic destruction and helplessness. In this, her story differs from many about widows in the Bible...We have no sense that Anna is impoverished, anxious or desperate...She seems to be yearning for something that is not practical at all. (Parkerton, Person and Silver, Where You Go, I Shall: Gleanings from the Stories of Biblical Widows, 71-72)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) adds:

In some deep sense, Jesus is an answer to the prayers of Anna, even as to those of Simeon. Arriving on the scene precisely at the moment of Simeon’s prayer she acts as what dramaturgists call “fifth business”; in her words she not only gives thanks to God but Luke adds, like the shepherds, also immediately begins to spread the good word “to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 48)

In painting this picture of Anna, Luke has given his witness credibility. Just as Simeon’s piety give him tenability to make an important pronouncement (Luke 2:25) so does Anna’s character make her a reliable spokesperson. In someways, it is not surprising that the supergodly woman recognizes God when she sees the baby Jesus.

In doing so, Anna carries out her prophetic role. While angels announce Jesus’ coming to Zechariah (Luke 1:11), Mary (Luke 1:26) and the shepherds (Luke 2:9), Anna does so for holy city (Luke 2:38).

Are you a credible witness? Which of the details that Luke uses to describe Anna most defines her? Who do you know who is devout like Anna? Who do you know with great spiritual insight? For whose benefit is Anna’s prophecy? How do you think that her prophecy was received? Did anyone even notice? Compare and contrast Simeon and Anna; are they more alike or different? How does Anna know Jesus is the one she has been seeking?

Simeon and Anna recognize Jesus in part because they are looking for him. They live in a state of perpetual hope. The persevering elderly duo never give up. How many babies must Anna have seen in all of those decades at the temple? Yet, after all that time, she waits expectantly.

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

Mary and Joseph needed Simeon and Anna at that moment; the old man and old woman needed them, had been waiting for them, and now thanked God for them. (Wright, Luke for Everyone, 27)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) adds:

Simeon and Anna represented all who saw that their only hope was in the mercy and grace of God. Along with the poor carpenter and his wife and the outcast shepherds, they were flesh-and-blood examples of those to whom Christ comes. They personified the paradox of being profoundly empty and profoundly full — “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6). They longed for righteousness and consolation that would come only through the Messiah. They came to God’s house hungry, and they received as few others have in the history of the world...Lives like these are rare. Such longing is not in vogue today. (Hughes, Luke (Volume 1): That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 95)

Waiting is often one of the marks of the faithful. Henri J.M. Nouwen (1932-1996) notes, “Waiting...became the attitude of only the remnant of Israel, of that small group of Israelites that had remained faithful (Nouwen, Finding My Way Home: Pathways to Life and the Spirit, 95).”

Simeon and Anna are emblematic of the patient faithful. Like today, though the remnant may have dwindled, people are still expecting the Messiah to come.

Is anticipation a necessary component of faith? What, if anything, are you currently anticipating? Do we long for Jesus as Anna does?

“We possess the past by memory and the future by anticipation” - Paul Tillich (1886-1965), The Shaking of the Foundations, p. 35

When Life is the Pits (Jeremiah 38:6)

What prophet was imprisoned in a cistern (a water tank)? Jeremiah (Jeremiah 38:6)

Amid the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem, the prophet Jeremiah gives his customary message as he predicts the fall of the city (Jeremiah 38:2-3). His nation has only two options: submit or resist. While the government is committed to resistance, the prophet does what prophets often do and dissents. In his theological reading of the situation, Jeremiah encourages submitting to the empire noting the inevitable consequences of the siege: death, famine and pestilence (Jeremiah 38:3).

The local patriots cannot accept this perceived endorsement of Babylonian supremacy and respond by charging the prophet with treason and advise a death sentence (Jeremiah 36:4).

Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) analyzes:

The officials’ accusatory report to the king includes its own suggested verdict. Jeremiah is portrayed as a deliberate agitator, and his bad influence is described—perhaps exaggerated to bolster the accusation—as percolating through the city, affecting the military stationed in Jerusalem and civilians alike, and damaging the war effort. Not even the king could deny the accusation or verdict, and he assigned the officials to carry out the verdict (cf. Jeremiah 26:14). Publicly committed to the war effort, he had no option but to accede to their demand, which led to Jeremiah’s being moved to wretched conditions of imprisonment. (Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 413)

The officials’ report puts king Zedekiah’s weakness on display. Caught in the middle between zealous patriots and the disapproving prophet, Zedekiah abdicates just like Pilate would do centuries later (John 19:6). The indifferent monarch claims to be powerless (Jeremiah 37:5) and as he was appointed king by Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 24:17; II Chronicles 36:10; Jeremiah 37:1), this is not entirely inaccurate. The king takes orders from his subjects and Jeremiah, just as he had been in the previous chapter (Jeremiah 37:15), finds himself imprisoned (Jeremiah 38:6). Only this time, his cell is much worse.

Then they took Jeremiah and cast him into the cistern of Malchijah the king’s son, which was in the court of the guardhouse; and they let Jeremiah down with ropes. Now in the cistern there was no water but only mud, and Jeremiah sank into the mud. (Jeremiah 38:6 NASB)

The entire account of Jeremiah’s cistern imprisonment is highly detailed and demonstrates that the author clearly has intimate knowledge of the events (Jeremiah 38:1-13). The passage even chronicles information as trivial as the source of the rags used to raise the prophet (Jeremiah 38:11). Many have seen this as evidence of the passage recalling recent historical facts.

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) demonstrates that Jeremiah is an enemy of the state:

[Jeremiah] is undermining the war effort, and that cannot be tolerated. His is an effective act of sabotage of royal policy because it combines an intelligent political assessment of the chances for Jerusalem with a claim of theological insight. The government does not — indeed dares not — agree with him. It only wants him silenced. On any “realistic” reading of the situation, Jeremiah is an enemy of the government, preparing a counteroption against the “well-being” (shalom) of the city as defined by the government. The issue is joined between the government and this formidable dissent. Indeed, this entire chapter is about the problem of public dissent which claims to be the voice of God. (Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming, 362)

Consequently, Jeremiah is incarcerated in a cistern (Hebrew: bowr) near the palace. The word “cistern” (ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) is also translated “dungeon” (ASV, KJV, NKJV) and “well” (CEV). Though the word is best understood by the dominant reading, the older translations are correct in deeming it a dungeon as in this case, that is its function.

A cistern was a reservoir into which rainwater could drain to be collected and stored. Cisterns were a fairly common feature in Israelite homes, typically dug out of limestone rock to varying depths. Cistern water was inferior; previously, Jeremiah had contrasted the water of cisterns with the springs that produced “living” water (Jeremiah 2:13).

Philip J. King (b. 1925) describes:

In agricultural societies, cisterns (bor, borot; bo’r, bo’rot) are important for several reasons. A principal use of these underground chambers is as storage for rainwater collected through drains as it accumulated on flat roofs or in courtyards. This rainwater is then stored for use in the dry season (from May through September). Cisterns were of various sizes and shapes in antiquity. Many were bottle-shaped, approximately ten feet wide and sixteen feet deep, with a stone-covering over the small opening at the top. The neck was the narrow shaft through which vessels were lowered into the cistern by rope. Other cisterns were bell-shaped, approximately eight feet wide and twelve feet deep. Some cisterns had steps–for example, the cisterns at Qumran where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Cisterns were hollowed out of natural rock or converted from natural cave formations. (King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion, 154)

It is unknown why this specific cistern is selected but convenience (it is close and dry) is probable.

Entrance to cisterns was difficult, hence the references to the prophet being admitted and removed by ropes (Jeremiah 38:6, 13). The fact that a cistern was more than twice the height of a person made for difficult escape. Cisterns were often pear-shaped with a small opening at the top leading to a wider basin. As such, Jeremiah is trapped like a genie in a bottle.

The cistern made for abhorrent prison conditions. The prophet finds himself in solitary confinement, sinking in a filthy, slimy pit (Jeremiah 38:6). Quarters are also cramped leaving him unable to move easily or rest. He will not be able to survive long in this environment.

Beth Moore (b. 1957) imagines:

Sinking inch by inch. That’s what happens in a pit. Jeremiah knew the feeling...Jeremiah 38:6 describes his pit as a place of sinking down. Imagine how much worse it was in sandals. No matter what’s on your feet, you can take this fact to the spiritual bank: a pit only gets deeper. Low ground always sinks. There’s no living at maintenance level in a pit. (Moore, Get Out of That Pit: Straight Talk About God’s Deliverance, 15)

Worse and more importantly for his suitors, his solitary confinement severely limits his audience. His voice, a critical prophetic word, is presumably silenced.

The prophet of doom is himself doomed to a slow lingering death. As the cistern is muddy, the government is clearly not attempting to drown him. Instead he is left for dead: starvation is the death that awaits the prophet.

Ironically, like sterilizing a needle to be used in a lethal injection, his vindictive captors go to great lengths to not harm Jeremiah themselves, gently lowering him into the pit (Jeremiah 38:6). Some have speculated that they wish to humiliate the prophet by producing a slow, ignominious death. Perhaps they do not wish to make him a martyr.

There is likely a more selfish reason. F.B. Huey, Jr. (b. 1925) explains:

No reason is given for putting Jeremiah in the cistern to die rather than killing him outright (cf. Joseph, Genesis 37:22-24). Perhaps they wanted him to suffer, but it is more likely that they had a superstitious fear of killing a prophet or shedding innocent blood. Shedding of innocent blood was considered to be one of the most abhorrent sins that could be committed (cf. Deuteronomy 19:10, 13, 21:8; Jonah 1:14). (Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations (New American Commentary), 334)

To add insult to injury, it was Jeremiah’s very faithfulness to God that brought him his shame and isolation.

John M. Bracke (b. 1947) interprets:

Jeremiah was in a precarious position. Jeremiah’s public dissent of the government’s pro-Egyptian policy placed him in a life-threatening situation. However, it was finally not Jeremiah’s politics that placed him in danger but his theology, the way he understood who God was and what God was about in his time and place. God promised Jeremiah, “I will deliver you out of the hand of the wicked and redeem you from the grasp of the ruthless” (Jeremiah 15:21; compare Jeremiah 1:8, 17-19). God’s assurances to Jeremiah will be tested. (Bracke, Jeremiah 30-52 and Lamentations (Westminster Bible Companion), 69-70)

Prophets often (in this case quite literally) are required to get down and dirty.

Do prophets ever agree with the majority opinion? Who protests war in your society? Are they being prophetic? Who is trying to silence their voices? When have you seen misguided patriotism in opposition to the word of God? What organizations are currently attempting to silence the word of God? Have you ever been persecuted for your religious beliefs? Who do you know who has suffered for God?

Even amid Jeremiah’s terrible circumstances, there is hope: The cistern is empty. Not only does this indicate that he will not drown but it is also evidence of water scarcity; Jeremiah’s prophecy of famine is coming true. His view of God is correct.

Thankfully, Jeremiah’s tenure in the pit is short-lived. A foreign official named Ebed-Melek the Cushite inexplicably appears out of nowhere and intercedes on Jeremiah’s behalf (Jeremiah 38:7-9). There is no hint of his motives but the puppet king yields again and the prophet is delivered (Jeremiah 37:10-13). The will of the government cannot silence God’s voice. The Word works even in the face of determined opposition.

Just as the prophet is delivered from the cistern, there is hope for his nation. And hope for us. The pit is a symbol that many believers can relate to. John Calvin (1509-1574) viewed the cistern as a sort of grave and Jeremiah as a resurrected figure. Though Jeremiah 38:1-13 is not a resurrection passage it does provide hope.

Kathleen M. O’Connor (b. 1942) sees another Biblical allusion:

The cistern...connects Jeremiah’s captivity with the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis. Joseph’s brothers leave him to die in the cistern (bôr) and from there sell him into slavery in Egypt (Genesis 37:24, 28). Later Potiphar imprisons Joseph in a cistern (Genesis 40:15) and from there he finally escapes (Genesis 41:14). The allusion to the story of Joseph cloaks Jeremiah’s imprisonment in the cistern with ancient meaning. The word joins his captivity to that of an ancestor who knows similar peril and escapes imprisonment to flourish another day. Jeremiah’s story thereby gains the aura of ancestral authority and promises hope of survival to the people also trapped in the pit of suffering. (O’Connor, Jeremiah: Pain and Promise, 154)

There is no pit so deep as to eliminate the possibility of God’s rescue. There is always hope for redemption.

Has your life ever felt as gloomy as if you were trapped in a miry pit? Who helped you through your ordeal? How did you maintain hope amid the trial? What does this text say to those who are in the pit with seemingly no reprieve? Is there anyone you know struggling in the pit that you can help?

I waited patiently for the Lord;
he turned to me and heard my cry.
He lifted me out of the slimy pit,
out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock
and gave me a firm place to stand.
— Psalm 40:1-2, NASB

Lazarus’ Four Missing Days (John 11:17)

Whom did Jesus raise from the dead after he had been dead for four days? Lazarus.

Not counting his own resurrection, Jesus raises three people from the dead: Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9:18–26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40–56), the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11:1-45). The latter is typically the most remembered. Lazarus is the only person raised who is named and his story represents the climactic sign of Jesus’ ministry in John’s gospel. In addition, unlike the other resurrection accounts, Lazarus has been buried and gone for a significant period of time — four days to be exact (John 11:17, 39).

So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. (John 11:17 NASB)

To heighten the sense of drama, John includes that Lazarus’ ever pragmatic sister, Martha, tries to dissuade Jesus from entering the tomb based upon the macabre reality of her brother’s stench after four days (John 11:39)!

That Lazarus’ resurrection in John is more stirring than the comparable stories in the Synoptic gospels is not surprising and historical critics have long read the story with skepticism. Alan J. Torrance (b. 1956) appraises:

The Lazarus story constitutes the most spectacular — if not stupendous — of the miracle accounts in the four Gospels. Presented as a piece of historical reporting, the story has a counterintuitive ring to it. Unparalleled in significant respects by any of the Synoptic miracle accounts and certainly uncorroborated by them, what reads as a carefully crafted story of the reanimation of a decaying corpse takes some believing. It...comes from a writer who appears to exaggerate miracle accounts. His blind man is not just blind but blind from birth [John 9:1], his lame man is not just lame but lame for thirty-seven years [John 5:5]. Lazarus is not just dead but seriously dead! John Cleese [b. 1939]’s famous parrot sketch comes to mind: “Dead for four days? How dead can you get!” (Richard Bauckham [b. 1946] and Carl Mosser [b. 1972], “The Lazarus Narrative, Theological History, and Historical Probability”, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, 247)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) counters:

What makes the reanimation of Lazarus...notable is the length of time he has been dead (at least four days – John 11:17, 39; his body presumably would have begun to decay!). Of course, if one comes to these texts already convinced that resurrections are under no circumstances possible, no amount of evidence will persuade one of historicity...Others find themselves unable to believe that the Synoptics would have omitted such a story if it actually happened. (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 165)

Ironically, the evangelist’s intent in denoting the four days is to leave no doubts that Lazarus has indeed died. In fact, timing is emphasized throughout John’s account of Lazarus (John 11:1-45). Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) notes:

The Lazarus story makes several references to time—two days (John 11:6), twelve hours (John11:9), four days (John 11:39), that year (John 11:49, 51), that day (John 11:53)—and together they reinforce the idea of God’s plan having its due time and of the need for being ready to meet him. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 389)

Four days is not a common biblical time span (Judges 11:40; I Samuel 27:7; John 11:17, 39; Acts 10:30) but here it is significant. Many have presumed that the story reflects a commonly held Jewish belief that a person’s spirit remains near her body for three days after death only to depart when putrefaction becomes evident. The spirit is then obligated to depart to Sheol, the place of the dead.

In Israel’s climate, burial was not delayed as evidenced by the account of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:6, 10). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) comments:

Burial was on the day of death. It was followed by a week of mourning. In popular Jewish belief the human spirit hovered near the body for three days, then departed as the color of the corpse began to change. Normally death would be irrevocable and all hope abandoned for one buried four days (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 12:6; Leviticus Rabbah 18:1). The problem is acute (cf. John 5:5: paralyzed for thirty-eight years; John 9:1: blind from birth). (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, 177)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) adds:

This note is significant. There was a well-known Jewish belief (attested from about A.D. 200) that the soul of a dead person remained in the vicinity of the body “hoping to reenter it” for three days, but once decomposition set in, the soul departed. Similarly, the Mishnah says that in judicial cases deceased persons can only be identified for up to three days (Yebamot 16:3). John wants us to know clearly that Lazarus is truly dead and that the miracle of Jesus cannot be construed as a resuscitation. (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation (Bible Knowledge Series), 105)

Though many scholars assume that the evangelist presupposes the belief that the spirit hovers for three days, some, notably Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938 , p. 307), doubt just how common this common knowledge was at the time of Jesus as it is not attested until two centuries later.

It can be certain that in referencing the four day period, the evangelist is underscoring that Lazarus is irreversibly dead. He is neither found buried alive nor resuscitated.

In the classic 1987 fantasy film The Princess Bride, Westley (Cary Elwes, b. 1962) the swashbuckling protagonist, is presumed dead but when taken to Miracle Max (Billy Crystal.b. 1948) it is revealed that he is “only mostly dead”. Max explains, “It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do...Go through his clothes and look for loose change.” The four days is to be seen as a definitive postmortem that differentiates between comatose and dead. Lazarus is all dead.

Practically speaking, four days means that for all intents and purposes, Jesus is too late. What is needed is not reanimation but rather resurrection. To produce Lazarus, Jesus must achieve the impossible and as such raising Lazarus is Jesus’s most difficult and astonishing sign. And this is exactly the point that John is attempting to make: Jesus has authority over death.

What state of decay would a body be in after four days? Do you think Lazarus experienced any decomposition (that was restored by Jesus)? What do you think of the belief that the spirit remains with the body for a period of time after death? Which cultures still hold similar beliefs? Does Jesus delay his visit to insure that Lazarus will be definitely deceased when he arrives (John 11:6)? Would it have been any less a miracle had Jesus raised Lazarus after only one day? Have you ever felt that God was slow to act only to later view the delay as perfect timing? Where is Lazarus’ spirit during the four days he is in the tomb and what does he experience?

Lazarus is one of the few people to defy the natural order by dying twice (Hebrews 9:27). Since it is stressed that Lazarus experienced death normally, it has led to speculation as to whether he experienced a normal afterlife — where was Lazarus’ spirit during the four days his body was entombed? From John’s perspective, Lazarus did not enter heaven (John 3:13). Another theory was popularized in the 1984 contemporary Christian song “Lazarus Come Forth”; Carman (b. 1956) sings, “When he died he went to where/The saints of God did stay/In the holding place/They lived beyond the tomb.”

Many have seen Lazarus’ raising as unfair. If Lazarus were in a better place, such as Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22-23), it appears cruel for Jesus to recall him into the natural world only to die again. If Lazarus is relegated to a place like a holding place, purgatory or even hell, it would seem equally unfair that he be rescinded.

Based upon Jesus’ character, it can be assumed that Jesus would not harm anyone, much less, Lazarus whom the text specifically notes that he loved (John 11:5). Wherever Lazarus was, he was safe. As all of the locales for Lazarus’ spirit to rest prove problematic, perhaps Lazarus went nowhere. It is quite possible that Lazarus experiences nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). Jesus uses the euphemism of sleep to describe Lazarus’ condition and that may be exactly his experience (John 11:11, 13).

Problems only arise if the interpreter tries to conform eternity into the box of human time. Eternal time and space need not be synchronized with human experience.

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) explains:

Most of this mischief and confusion about the place of the dead was stirred up not only by Platonic dualism but by biblical literalism and, perhaps most of all, by the perfectly understandable attempt to work all of this out using only the metrics of linear, historical clock time, with its fixed notions of before and after, now and then. But when we speak in a Christian sense about death and resurrection, we are working not in clock time alone, but in at least two time frames: ordinary historical time and eschatological time (or perhaps more accurately, the eternal transcends time)...These two perspectives come together in John 11 in the conversation between Jesus and Martha, the sister of Jesus’ friend Lazarus. In that way of the author of John—superimposing two kinds of time, ordinary and eternal, layering the candlestick and the faces in the same text—we are shown Martha, who is in clock time, historical time, and we are shown Jesus, who is eternal, not constrained by time...From Martha’s perspective, they have run out of time...But then eternity speaks into temporality: “Your brother will rise again.” [John 11:23] (Long, Accompany Them with Singing: The Christian Funeral, 51-53)

Tellingly, the Bible is silent on the matter of Lazarus’ whereabouts. His response is not documented and we hear nothing of the phenomenons that people with near death experiences typically recount. Had he experienced something relevant, his testimony would have been recorded. Scripture is silent on the matter for a reason.

The text does open the discussion of where we will go when we die and on that subject, the Bible speaks (e.g., John 14:2).

Where was Lazarus between the dreaming and the coming true of his resurrection? Why is Lazarus resurrected? How do you think Lazarus felt about his resurrection? Why do you think there is no record of Lazarus’ experience from his perspective? Did Lazarus have a choice in the matter; could he have refused to leave the tomb? Where do you think your spirit will go after you die? Are you assured of your salvation?

“Humans live in time but... [God] destines them to eternity. He therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself, and to that point of time, which they call the Present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), The Screwtape Letters, p. 75

Don’t Toot Your Own Horn (Proverbs 27:2)

Complete: “Let another praise you, and __________________.” Not your own mouth (Proverbs 27:2)

Every one feels underappreciated at times and it is natural to overcompensate in these moments. A segment of Proverbs addressing friends and friendships (Proverbs 27:1-10) begins by renouncing boasting (Proverbs 27:1-2).

Let another praise you, and not your own mouth;
A stranger, and not your own lips. (Proverbs 27:2 NASB)

Proverbs often advises to speak carefully. In lieu of praising oneself, this proverb advises to allow a stranger to do so. The word rendered “stranger” (nokriy) suggests a foreigner or alien in its most common use. In this context, the word does not indicate someone from another country but rather signifies a broader scope: someone wholly other. It merely accentuates the distance between subject and critic as praise by unknown foreigners would likely be of little value.

David Hubbard (1928-1996) comments:

Sound evaluation can come only from others—and they ought not to be too close to us...“Stranger”...underscores the sense of distance. Neither friend, neighbor, nor family member would be described in such terms. Outside “praise”...may not always be accurate but it is always more seemly than self-praise which shades over into the boasting described in Proverbs 27:1. (Hubbard, Proverbs (Mastering the Old Testament))

Robert Jeffress (b. 1955) paraphrases:

Refuse to honk your own horn...This is one of the simplest yet most often ignored principles for success in life. Refuse to be your own press agent. Let other people handle the job for you...Admittedly, this principle can be hard to follow. We tend to think that if we don’t tell others about our accomplishments, they will go unnoticed. The truth is that when we try to shine the spotlight on ourselves, we only set ourselves up for humiliation. (Jeffress, The Solomon Secrets: 10 Keys to Extraordinary Success from Proverbs, 194)

Max Lucado (b. 1955) adds:

Demanding respect is like chasing a butterfly. Chase, it and you’ll never catch it. Sit still, and it may light on your shoulder. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal [1623-1662] asked, “Do you wish people to speak well of you? Then never speak well of yourself.” Maybe that’s why the Bible says, “Don’t praise yourself. Let someone else do it.” (Lucado, Traveling Light: Releasing the Burdens You Were Never Intended to Bear, 76)

In today’s sell yourself world, Proverbs’ synthetic admonition to keep one’s successes to onseself is counter cultural.

Praise is only as good as its source. Our own praise is too unobjective to be useful. We are too close to the situation to see ourselves clearly and as such we cannot accurately gage our own efforts.

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) analyzes:

The admonition protects one against self-deception and flattery. “A person is judged by his praise.” (Proverbs 27:21), but to be of value that praise must be credible. Objective friends have no self-interest in either their positive evaluation of a person or in their celebrating his virtue...A German proverb says, “Eigen-Lob stinkt, Freundes Lob hinkt, Fremdes Lob klingt” — “self-praise stinks, a friend’s praise limps, a stranger’s praise rings.” William McKane [1921-2004] comments, “Whereas society will not take the boaster seriously, it has its own way of testing him before according him acclaim and entrusting him with power [cf. Proverbs 27:21, 25:6-7; Luke 14:7-11; John 12:43].” Moreover self-promotion through boasting may elevate a person beyond his competence, leading him to fear demotion or in fact to be demoted and shamed. (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 374)

There are practical as well as moral reasons for the sage’s advice. Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) observes:

Modesty is a tactical as well as moral virtue, for others are more likely to speak of a person’s virtues and accomplishments if he himself is silent on them, and “He whose spirit is humble will hold honor” (Proverbs 29:23b). A further implication is that one should act in such a way that other people, and not only his own mouth will praise him. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible), 803)

Relationship counselors Les (b. 1961) and Leslie Parrott (b. 1964) (naturally) apply the proverb to romantic relationships. They take the proverb’s negative and encourage the positive inverse:

This truth may not have been written with couples in mind, but the wise husband and wife will see its applicability to marriage...Loving couples praise one another in private and in public. They tell each other’s stories of accomplishment..So when you have an opportunity to bring praise to yourself in a social setting, skip it. But when an opportunity arises for you to compliment your spouse in front of others, don’t let the opportunity slip by. (Parrott and Parrott, Meditations on Proverbs for Couples, 38)

Proverbs does not discourage praise, only self praise (Proverbs 27:21). It is more fitting for someone else to place the crown on the ruler’s head. Besides, if you are good, there is no need to tell people. They will know it. And if you need to tell someone you are good, how good could you be?

Why is Proverbs 27:2 sage advice? What other tasks should you not do for yourself? When have you been tempted to brag about your own success? Why? What should you do if no one else praises your good work? Whose opinion do you most value, your own or others? Whose assessment is most accurate? Is there an implicit admonition to praise worthy acts in Proverbs 27:2? Who should we praise?

It is typically better to give than to take praise. The word for praise is halal from which we get the word hallelujah. Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) notes:

The trilateral root hll in the qal conjugation means “to praise,” and the root contributes to a wordplay: Just as one cannot take tomorrow for granted (hthll in Proverbs 27:1, hithpael conjugation) so one cannot praise oneself (hll in Proverbs 27:3). Honor is granted, not taken. (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 237)

Stephen D. Renn defines:

Hālal is a fairly common verb occurring in 165 contexts with the predominant meaning “to praise,” as well as “to glory,” “boast.”...In the context of “praise” directed towards human beings hālal conveys the sense of “commend” (Genesis 12:15; Proverbs 12:8) and “admire” (II Samuel 14:25; II Chronicles 23:12; Proverbs 27:2, 31:28ff; Song of Solomon 6:9). (Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts,748)

Though it is sometimes used of humans and even objects (Genesis 12:15; II Samuel 14:25; Proverbs 27:2), the verb is usually reserved for God.

God follows the recommendation offered in Proverbs 27:2. Instead of self praise, God allows others to do it. In fact, this is one of our primary tasks. Anything that could garner praise for us is worth us giving praise to God.

Is there anything you can take credit for that God did not do? Do you praise God for your accomplishments?

“Don’t talk about yourself; it will be done when you leave.” - Wilson Mizner (1876-1933)

Jesus and Women (Luke 8:2-3)

Name the three women who supported Jesus “out of their substance” (financially) during his ministry? Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Joanna, wife of Chuza (Luke 8:2, 3)

In one of the gospel’s “summary statements”, Luke provides a rare glimpse into Jesus’ entourage.

And also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means. (Luke 8:2-3, NASB)

Though the evangelist will portray them in relatively conventional roles, Luke places a greater emphasis on women than the other canonical gospels, consistently acknowledging their part in Jesus’s ministry. Here, they are placed on equal footing with the disciples (Luke 8:1-3). This text also gives the women the rare dignity of being named. In fact, the way the women are introduced may indicate that they were known to the gospel’s readers.

Luke 8:2-3 foreshadows that these women will be the witnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial (Luke 23:49, 55, 24:1-11). While the other canonical evangelists do not reference the women until the death narratives (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25), Luke builds up the credibility of his prize witnesses by placing them in the company throughout Jesus’ life. Mary Magdalene will play a prominent role in the death narratives in each gospel (Matthew 27:56, 61, 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25, 20:1-2, 11-18) and Joanna will be seen in a similar context but only in Luke (Luke 24:10). Susanna is never again referenced and nothing is known of her.

Here, the women’s role is that of patron. The verb used of the women is diakoneo from which the word “deacon” is derived (Acts 6:1-6). The women are apparently affluent. Jesus was homeless (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58) and somebody had to foot the bills for the itinerant preacher and his companions. When they were sent out two by two, the disciples could depend on the hospitality of strangers (Luke 10:7), but this was not feasible when traveling in a group so large. Luke’s gospel provides a small piece of the puzzle in reconfiguring how Jesus sustained himself.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) praises:

This is valuable as giving us one of the few glimpses we have of the way Jesus’ needs during his ministry were met. We read of the apostolic band as having a common purse from which purchases of food were made and gifts were given to the poor (John 12:39), but not of how it was supplied. Here we learn that these women responded in love and gratitude for what Jesus had done for them (cf. Mark 15:40ff). It seems to have been not uncommon for godly women to help religious teachers, and Jesus speaks of some Pharisees who were evidently quite rapacious (Luke 20:47). It is heart-warming to read of this group of women who supported Jesus. And it is worth reflecting that the Gospels record no woman as ever taking action against him: his enemies were all men (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 165)

Though having women benefactors may not have been uncommon, females traveling openly with men was highly unusual (John 4:27). And Luke presents the women’s presence in the traveling outfit as being normative. The phrase “and many others” (Luke 8:3) is in the feminine in Greek meaning that there were other women in the group. The women are also mentioned at the gathering of the early church (Acts 1:13-14). These women were among those who had left home sake of the kingdom (Luke 18:29).

Even the staunchest critics acknowledge the historicity of this point as this is not a detail anyone would create to present their group in a positive light. It appeared improper and likely raised the same questions then that would arise today if women traveled with a charismatic man: Jesus might be seen as a gigolo or the women as his groupies.

Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) recognizes:

It is possible that the pictured arrangement reflects the division widespread in ancient and traditional societies between women, who work within the household, and men, who are expected to handle public affairs...Even if verses Luke 8:2-3 do not break with traditional gender roles in all respects, the idea of women wandering through the countryside with an itinerant preacher and his band would be shocking. Maintaining a woman’s sexual honor was very important to her husband and family. Prolonged contact with males outside the family would threaten the honor of the woman and her family. (Tannehill, Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 139-140)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) adds:

Luke 8:1-3 stands in contrast to its historical context in rabbinic Judaism. We know women were allowed to hear the word of God in the synagogue but they were never disciples of a rabbi unless their husband or master was a rabbi willing to teach them. Though a woman might be taught certain negative precepts of the Law out of necessity, this did not mean they would be taught rabbinic explanations of the Torah. It was not uncommon for women to support rabbis and their disciples out of their own money, property, or foodstuffs. But for her to leave home and travel with a rabbi was not only unheard of, it was scandalous. Even more scandalous was the fact that women, both respectable and not, were among Jesus’ traveling companions. Yet it was an intended part of his ministry that women be witnesses from the earliest part of his Galilean ministry until his death, and benefit from his teaching and healing. This involved their traveling with him so they would understand and be prepared for the significance of his resurrection when they were called upon to be the last at the cross, first at the tomb, and first to bear witness to the resurrection (Luke 23:55-24:11). (Levine, “On the Road with Mary Magdalene,” A Feminist Companion to Luke, 134-35)

Despite their presence being highly irregular, the women are depicted in a decidedly positively light. Though Mary Magdalene has been painted as a woman of ill repute based upon her hosting seven demons (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2) this is not in the text.

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) clarifies:

“Evil spirits” and “demons” had afflicted these women...and...Jesus had healed them...In the understanding of the gospel writers and their communities such spirits were seen in the physical and emotional pain that people suffered; they did not cause the people they “possessed” to sin or to be morally evil. In fact the only hint that we get about the moral character of these women is their faithful accompaniment of Jesus. Apparently, at least some of them were women of means, but instead of hiding in the comfort wealth could provide or supporting the mission of Jesus from the safety of their homes, they are said to be traveling with him. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 112)

Joel B. Green (b. 1956) identifies:

These women are...characterized as (1) persons who mirror the graciousness of Jesus’ own benefaction, (2) persons who, like Jesus, “serve” others (cf. Luke 22:24-27), and (3) exemplars of Jesus’ message on faith and wealth...whose lives anticipate Luke’s portrait of early Christian community among whom “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (Acts 4:32)...Luke 8:1-3...parades these women (and not the twelve) as persons who both hear and act on the word of God (Luke 8:21; cf. Luke 6:46-49). (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 320)

Though women are not featured in prominent leadership roles in the gospels, they are presented as being among Jesus’ disciples from his earliest days. As such, their later marginalization does not emanate from any policy of Jesus.

Why were women Jesus’ financial backers? How does the presence of these and other women in Jesus’ ministry speak to women’s involvement in ministry today? Whose ministry can you support financially? Why is Luke the only evangelist that names the women or even includes their early involvement? Why does the evangelist include this potentially scandalous information?

The women are seen as highly independent. Joanna is the only one identified in reference to a man and the reference to her husband, Chuza, has garnered much attention (Luke 8:3). Though Chuza is not referenced in any extrabiblical sources, the Aramaic name does occur in Nabatean and Syrian inscriptions.

Chuza’s exact position is uncertain. He is described as an epitropos, a word used only three times in the New Testament (Matthew 20:8; Luke 8:3; Galatians 4:2). The word is translated “steward” (ASV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), ‘manager” (ESV, MSG, NIV, NLT), or “official” (CEV). Most posit that he was either the manager of a royal estate or high ranking official.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) defines:

The title epitropos (used only here in the Lucan writings) cannot be understood as the Greek equivalent of Latin praefectus or procurator...It should rather by understood as “manager” of Herod’s estate (see Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.6,6 §194). (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (The Anchor Bible), 698)

The connection to Herod is tantalizing. Herod is introduced as tetrarch of Galilee in Luke 3:1 and will frequently reappear in the narrative (Luke 9:7-9, 13:31, 23:7-12).

Jonathan Marshall (b. 1978) conjectures:

Joanna was probably from Tiberius since her husband served Antipas who moved his capital to the new city...For Joanna, her husband’s occupation..and therefore boss (Antipas), brought her into the inner circles of Galilean politics. Joanna might have been the conduit through which Jesus learned of Antipas’ feelings towards him and of how Antipas learned of the ministry of Jesus (Luke 9:7)...He [Jesus] could have an insider’s look at Antipas’ motivations for constructing Tiberias and relocating its people. (Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke, 180-181)

Luke’s access to Joanna and Manaen (Acts 13:1) also explains the evangelist’s intimate knowledge of Herod’s household.

The fact that Joanna was married also begs the question as to the nature of Joanna’s and Chuza’s relationship. Frédéric Louis Godet (1812-1900) speculates that Chuza was the royal officer in John’s gospel whose son Jesus healed (John 4:46-53).

Conversely, Heidi Bright Parales (b. 1961) surmises that Joanna left her husband to follow Jesus:

What man of Herod’s court—a royal minister of finance—would stand for his wife traipsing around the countryside with a ragtag band of rural folk, following a radical preacher who behaved in shocking ways?...Joanna had left not only her wealthy husband but also all the advantages of court life to follow Jesus. She left family and influence, although she continued to have enough wealth to help support the disciples and Jesus. She may well have provided the seamless robe Jesus wore, as well as a comfortable location for the Last Supper—things fishermen’s wives could not have supplied. (Parales, Hidden Voices: Biblical Women and Our Christian Heritage, 39)

Joanna’s background likely did her no favors in her new family as most of Jesus’ followers had experienced high taxes from her husband’s employer. Richard Bauckham (b. 1946), who theorizes that Joanna was a prominent liaison for Jesus and one and the same as the apostle named Junia (Romans 16:7), writes:

Among these people, her status brought her no honor, not even her substantial donations to the common fund gave her a place above others. But instead she found a place in what Jesus called his new family of those who were practicing the will of God, his sisters and brothers and mothers, who were therefore also sisters and brothers and mothers to each other. (Bauckham, Gospel Women: Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, 196)

Luke 8:1-3 in general and Joanna in particular speak to the vast scope of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus breaks economic and class divisions. Followers are not discouraged because of their gender or wealth. Jesus’ message appeals to the wealthy (Acts 13:1, 7, 12, 26-39, 18:8, 19:31) as well as the poor. Joanna is evidence that Christianity has penetrated to high places.

The three women listed represent diverse levels of social standing with presumably only one common bond: Jesus. Their love for Jesus was greater than their many differences.

Did Jesus exclude anyone based upon the demographic they represented? Who does your church exclude? Should anyone be excluded?

“No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Trophimus Left Behind (II Timothy 4:20)

Where did Paul leave Trophimus ill? Miletus (II Timothy 4:20)

Traditionally, II Timothy is considered to be Paul’s last letter. In the epistle, the imprisoned apostle corresponds with his protégé, Timothy (II Timothy 1:2), encouraging him to visit as soon as possible (II Timothy 4:9, 21). Timothy’s presence is all the more desired as Paul has been abandoned by his followers, with the exception of Luke (II Timothy 4:11, 16).

Paul concludes his letter with the customary list of his personal concerns (II Timothy 4:9-22), The embattled apostle includes a passing reference to a mutual friend: he has left Trophimus ill in Miletus (II Timothy 4:20).

Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus. (II Timothy 4:20 NASB)

Trophimus was a native of Ephesus (Acts 21:29) and had accompanied the apostle from Greece to Troas (Acts 20:4) and on his final trip to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29). In fact, Trophimus was the indirect cause of Paul’s arrest (Acts 21:29). Scholars have attempted to use Trophimus’ presence and presumed recent illness to retrace the apostle’s footsteps and date the letter, a difficult task which has produced an array of results.

Trophimus is said to be sick. The Greek term used is astheneo, a term with a broad range of meaning translated as either “sick” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT) or “ill” (ESV, NRS, RSV). George W. Knight III (b. 1931) diagnoses:

Paul left Trophimus at Miletus because Trophimus was ἀσθενουντα. The verb ἀσθενέω was used generally of the state of being weak. All its New Testament occurrences refer to physical illness (e.g., Matthew 25:39; John 4:46; Philippians 2:26ff; James 5:14). Though Paul on other occasions was the instrument through which individuals were healed (Acts 14:9-10, 19:11-12, 20:10, 28:8-9; cf. II Corinthians 12:12), he did not always heal: On this occasion he left a fellow worker “sick” (cf. II Corinthians 12:7-10). The implication of the verb “I left behind” (ἀπέλιπον) is that Paul was with Trophimus in or near Miletus when Trophimus stopped traveling. (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 477)

The term “sick” is as broad in Greek as it is in English and encompasses the potentiality of Trophimus simply being exhausted. John Wimber (1934-1997) and Kevin Springer (b. 1947) acknowledge:

There is the possibility, based on the Greek word translated in this verse “sick,” that Trophimus had overworked and weakened his body...Indeed, the illnesses...could have been associated with...ministries...In other words, they may have been guilty of what many pastors...do today: abuse of their bodies by disobeying the natural laws of health, which include good exercise, enough sleep, proper eating, recreation, and so on. (Wimber and Springer, Power Healing, 151)

Whatever the nature of his condition, Trophimus is too weakened to continue ministering and is left in Miletus, located on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Miletus was situated only 30-35 miles from Trophimus’ home and the church in Ephesus.

Trophimus is out of sight but clearly not out of Paul’s mind. There have been many suggestions as to why Paul includes his friend’s condition in his letter. Some suggest that he is merely informing Timothy of the plight of their mutual friend. Others see an implicit suggestion for Timothy to check on Trophimus.

Paul seldom worked alone and some have seen Paul as using Trophimus’ illness to accentuate why he is lonely – the absence of his team – in an effort to bring Timothy to him quicker.

The apostle is not blaming Trophimus for his desertion. In fact, the teacher can be seen as granting an excused absence. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) comments:

Six of the apostle’s seven companions are no longer with him. Demas, Cresens, and Titus have abandoned Paul, leaving Luke alone with him...Tychichus has been sent on a mission to Ephesus (II Timothy 4:12). Erastus remained behind in Corinth (II Timothy 4:20), and Trophimus, a sick man, was left behind in Miletus (II Timothy 4:20). The absence of these three is not presented as having contributed to Paul’s solitude. Their absence is the result of the apostle’s own initiative. (Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 278)

Regardless of why Paul makes the reference, Trophimus’ illness is conspicuous. George T. Montague (b. 1929) observes:

That he was sick, and not healed by Paul, is one of the rare mentions of illness in the apostolic workers of the New Testament. Paul himself seems to have suffered from some kind of eye infirmity when he was in Galatia (Galatians 4:15), and the weakness, or “thorn in the flesh,” of II Corinthians 12:7-9 may refer to an illness. It can be consoling to modern ministers to know that early ministers were not supermen or superwomen, but as St. John Chrysostom [347-407] notes, were able to accept God’s plan for them even if this included illness. (Montague, First and Second Timothy, Titus (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 208)

Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) teases, “It may be significant in connection with Paul’s involvement in miraculous acts, including healing (Acts 14:8-10, 28:7-9) that Trophimus was left ‘sick in Miletus.’ (Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (The NIV Application Commentary), 302)”

Dispensationalists have interpreted Trophimus’ sickness as the end of the age of miracles. John MacArthur (b. 1939) is an exemplar, writing:

It is important to note that Paul made no effort himself to heal Trophimus, who, incidentally, was present at the late-night service in Troas when the apostle miraculously restored to life Eutychus, a young man who went to sleep during the sermon and fell out a window to his death (Acts 20:9-10; cf. Acts 20:4). The sign gifts were coming to an end. There is no evidence that any of the apostles, including Paul, performed miracles of any sort during their later years. As more and more of the New Testament was revealed and made available to the church, God’s Word no longer needed the verification of miracles. (MacArthur, 2 Timothy (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary), 215)

Dispensationalists read too much into the text. The New Testament does not claim that Paul did not try to heal his friend and it certainly makes no claims that the age of miracles is over.

Do miracles still exist? Do you pray for them? Why didn’t Paul heal Trophimus? Does Paul reference Trophimus’ illness for his own benefit or that of his ill friend? Is there sadness or regret in Paul’s tone when writing of Trophimus? Which is worse, Trophimus’ illness or being left by his friend?

It is uncertain what happened to Trophimus. Tradition says that he did not succumb to his illness but rather to beheading at the command of Nero. It is difficult not to sympathize with his plight and wonder about his fate.

E. Frank Tupper (b. 1941) internalizes:

“Trophimus I left in Miletus.” Grace, but not grace enough. Ill, not healed. Ill, perhaps sustained? Ill, and left. Left sick, left behind, left out, left to somebody else, left to himself. Left, not healed. Left, not blessed. Left, not coping? Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus: Abandoned? Abandoned broken? Abandoned bereft? Abandoned to whomever and whatever and whenever? We do not know. II Timothy 4:20 is only a fragment, a story untold, a story no one knows...It is a story...of providence that we would like to know. We, too, are fragments in the correspondence of others. (Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of the Compassion of God, 307-08)

It is interesting that Paul finds himself in the same lonely predicament as Trophimus. We do not know if Timothy ever it made it to see his mentor. Likewise, Jesus, was also abandoned by his followers at the end of his earthly life (Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27).

Abandonment is a universal human experience. Yet Christians have the assurance that though they may feel abandoned, they are never truly alone. Our predecessors in the faith had the same experience and God is with us just as God was with them.

Why do you think that Paul left Trophimus in Miletus? Have you ever had to leave someone you love when they were ill? What abandoned person can you visit? What can you do for someone who is suffering when you cannot physically be with them? Have you ever felt abandoned? Do you realize that with God, you are not alone?

“I am not so different in my history of abandonment from anyone else after all. We have all been split away from each other, the earth, ourselves.” - Susan Griffin (b. 1943), A Chorus of Stones: The Private Life of War, p. 360

Drinking a Paycheck (Proverbs 23:21)

Who will come to poverty according to Proverbs 23:21? The drunkard and the glutton.

Proverbs 23:19-21 is an earnest appeal from father to son (Proverbs 23:19) admonishing not to associate with drunkards and gluttons (Proverbs 23:20). The father’s rationale is quite practical:

For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe one with rags. (Proverbs 23:21 NASB)

Midrash argues that a drunkard will eventually sell all of her possessions in the pursuit of wine (Leviticus Rabbah 12:1). This counsel stands in stark contrast to the opinion held by many that excessive comfort food and/or adult beverage relieve stress and lead to happiness.

While the motivation for abstinence or moderation here is pragmatic, elsewhere in Proverbs, drunkenness and gluttony are rejected on moral grounds. Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) notes:

Drunkenness and gluttony are here castigated. Elsewhere the rationale for criticizing getting drunk has to do with clouding one’s ability to think and make decisions. In other words, it disrupts one’s wisdom. The same can apply to overeating, which would lead to lethargic behavior, not the kind of diligent work so frequently encouraged in the book. However, the explicit motive given here against overdrinking and eating is that such overindulgence would lead to poverty. Spending too much money on too much food and too much drink would be foolish, not wise. For other teaching against overdrinking, see Proverbs 20:1, 23:29-35, 31:1-9. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 428)

This utilitarian argument for abstaining from excess fits the book’s perspective on poverty. Timothy Keller (b. 1950) acknowledges:

Another cause of poverty, according to the Bible, is what we would call “personal moral failures,” such as indolence (Proverbs 6:6-7) and other problems with self-discipline (Proverbs 23:21). The book of Proverbs is particularly forceful in its insistence that hard work can lead to economic prosperity (Proverbs 12:11, 14:23, 20:13), though there are exceptions (Proverbs 13:23) (Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just), 34)

Kathleen A. Farmer (b. 1943) summarizes:

The fourteenth “saying” (Proverbs 23:19-21) sees a relationship between overindulgences and poverty, as did several of the Solomonic sentences (e.g. Proverbs 20:12, 21:17). The drunkard, the glutton, and the chronically drowsy will all be clothed in rags, warns the sage. (Farmer, Who Knows What is Good?: A Commentary on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (International Theological Commentary), 111)

Here, extravagant drinking and eating are to be interpreted as a collective representing the epitome of overindulgence. The father’s message is that leading an extravagant lifestyle will eventually lead to poverty.

The Bible does not discourage drinking any more than eating. It is the excess that is frowned upon and this excess was a serious offense. The same words for “heavy drinker” and “glutton” are found in the Law characterizing a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). If found guilty, the stubborn child was to be executed (Deuteronomy 21:21)! Passages like these underscore how heavy a charge opponents levied on Jesus in deeming him “a glutton and a drunkard” (Luke 7:34 NASB).

Given this aggregate interpretation, the proverb is reminding that time, energy, money and opportunity are often wasted in the pursuit of indulgence . Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) conclude:

Overindulgence will prevent a person from making a living, and poverty will be the result. The author needs to warn the reader that self-control in all things is a prerequisite for those wishing to counsel those in power. Lose control and you lose your power and your job. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 228)

What did your parents teach you about alcohol and gluttony? What is the connection between excess and poverty? Has this proverb been proven true? Who can you think of whose extravagant lifestyle resulted in destitution? Have you ever known someone who gave up a vice for financial reasons? Is alcohol consumption more a moral or economic issue? Why does gluttony receive so little press relative to drinking?

Though the verse makes no distinction between gluttony and drunkenness, Proverbs does what most modern readers do when reading about drunkards and gluttons - it abandons gluttony and follows with a discourse on the dangers of excessive drinking (Proverbs 23:29-35).

Duane A. Garrett admits (b. 1953):

Those who live like Shakespeare’s Falstaff soon exhaust their resources. Christians should note that both drunkenness and gluttony are condemned. We often eschew the former and practice the latter. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 196)

Many of the arguments against excessive drinking also apply to gluttony. Max Anders (b. 1947) deduces:

Modern Christians often focus on alcohol, forgetting verses like these that speak against gluttons who lack self-control and gorge themselves on meat. In each case, the problem is the urge to indulge too much!...Either problem leads to the same result. The alcoholic pours all his resources into his drinking habit and eventually lands in poverty. The laziness and drowsiness that accompany such behavior lead inevitably to financial embarrassment. (Anders, Proverbs (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 198-99)

For all practical purposes, most do not perceive gluttony to be a sin. A gluttonous preacher railing against the depravity of inebriation is commonplace. This has not always been the case. In fact, gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins.

Perhaps the Enlightenment’s emphasis on intellect led to a modern docetism in which we accept things that harm the body more readily than those that affect the mind. Francine Prose (b. 1947) recounts:

As the Renaissance and later the Industrial Revolution and eighteenth-century rationalism refocused the popular imagination from heaven to earth and adjusted the goals of labor to include the rewards of this world as well as those of the next, gluttony lost some of its stigma and eventually became almost a badge of pride. Substance, weight, and the ability to afford the most lavish pleasures of the table became visible signs of vitality, prosperity, and of the worldly success to which both the captains and the humble foot soldiers of industry were encouraged to aspire. (Prose, Gluttony (The Seven Deadly Sins), 3)

Culture’s perception of gluttony has clearly changed. Has God’s?

Do you feel gluttony is a sin? If you had to presume a hierarchy of sin, which is worse, drunkenness or gluttony? Why? What are other sins associated with drinking and gluttony? What is the connection between the body and soul?

“Our fear of hypocrisy is forcing us to live in a world where gluttons are fine, so long as they champion gluttony.” - Jonah Goldberg (b. 1969), “Booking Bennet”, May 5, 2003

It’s All in the Hands (Exodus 17:9-13)

What did Moses do during the battle of Rephidim? Stayed on top of a hill holding up his hands with the rod of God in them (Exodus 17:9-12)

While wandering in the wilderness, Israel not only faces challenges from nature (Exodus 16:1-8, 9-36, 17:1-7) but also from new military rivals. The nascent nation’s first battle comes when the Amalekites ambush them at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8).

Presumably between gradual attacks, Moses instructs Joshua to piece together a makeshift army with the assurance that he would remain perched atop a hill holding the staff of God (Exodus 17:9). The Bible records that Moses’ posture was the deciding factor in a seesaw daylong battle (Exodus 17:11).

So it came about when Moses held his hand up, that Israel prevailed, and when he let his hand down, Amalek prevailed. (Exodus 17:11 NASB)

To ensure that Moses’ hands remain raised, he is propped up on a stone and realizing that six hands are better than two, Aaron and Hur hold his hands prostrate (Exodus 17:12). Israel wins the battle (Exodus 17:13).

The narrator leaves much to the imagination. Though both will play prominent roles later in the Exodus story, Joshua and Hur enter the biblical text for the first time with no introduction. The Amalekites also appear as a people for the first time (Genesis 14:7, 36:12). Not only is no introduction given them but no reason is given for their assault.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) speculates:

Exodus gives no reason for the attack. Perhaps they thought they could appropriate the Israelites’ flocks and herds. Living in the wilderness south of Canaan, perhaps they felt threatened by the Israelites’ advancing their way. Greed, resentment, and fear have often fueled anti-Semitism. But Exodus gives no reason and this underlines the link between the mystery of hostility to Israel and the Jewish people that has been a recurrent aspect of Israelite and Jewish experience. (Goldingay, Exodus and Leviticus for Everyone, 73)

The Amalekites, presumed to be a hostile nomadic tribe, are traditional enemies of Israel and they simply enter the story donned in their customary black hats (Judges 6:3-4; I Samuel 15:1-9, 27:8). They serve almost as stock characters in the Bible and are not referenced outside of it. The Israelites would later remember the attack as a cowardly affront to a vulnerable people (Deuteronomy 25:17-18). In appearing from seemingly out of nowhere, the text captures the unexpectedness of the attack felt by the original victims.

Perhaps the passage’s most glaring omission is that no explanation is given as to how Moses’ flagging equates to victory. The reader is left to speculate as to what he is doing or saying while raising his arms and why he is positioned high above the battlefield.

John I. Durham (b. 1933) notes that Moses’ position is conducive to his activity:

The reason for Moses’ position on the brow of the hill can be seen in what he does during the battle. Moses lifted his hands, in symbol of the power of Yahweh upon the fighting men of Israel, surely, but in some miraculous way Moses’ upraised hands became also conductors of that power. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3), 236)

Military historian Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) does not find Moses’ isolation irregular for a military commander:

Here we see the ancient dictum that commanders must be seen by their soldiers to be effective. Egyptian pharaohs were always portrayed as leading their troops in battle, as was Alexander. Caesar, it was said, wore a red cloak so his men could easily identify him during battle, and both George S. Patton (who seriously contemplated wearing a red cloak!) and Irwin Rommel were both known for their presence on the battlefield in plain sight of their soldiers. (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 82)

The real question is not Moses’ placement but what his actions symbolize -what is he doing with his hands? Many explanations have been posited.

Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) explicates:

Both Jewish and Christian commentators have been quick to assume that Moses’s stance was that of prayer. What else would he be doing? However, there is no indication whatever in the text which would confirm this. No words are spoken, but the battle is decided simply by the raising and lowering of his hands. The same effect results from Moses’ stance even when his weary arms are physically supported by others. Hugo Gressmann [1877-1927] and Georg Beer [1865-1946] have described the scene as magical, with Moses playing the role of cult magician. Additional parallels from the Ancient Near East have been suggested...Without discussing at length the validity of these extra-biblical parallels, certainly the Old Testament offers the closest parallel in the figure of Balaam (Numbers 22:1ff). He is hired to curse Israel, and the point of the narrative turns on the automatic effect of a curse (or a blessing) which, once it has been unleashed, continues relentlessly on its course. In Exodus 17 the hands are the instruments of mediating power, as is common throughout the Ancient Near East...This amoral element of the unleashing of power through an activity or a stance is still reflected in the story. Nor can it be rationalized away, as already in the Mekilta, by assuming that Moses’ role was essentially psychological. His uplifted hands encouraged the Israelites to exert themselves fully, whereas without the encouragement they slackened in battle. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 314-15)

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) admits:

The significance of this gesture is unclear. The hand, often the symbol of action and power, is also the instrument of mediation. The expression “the laying on of the hands” exemplifies this idea. Moses’ action might therefore be interpreted as a sort of mysterious focusing of super natural power on Israel. If so, it is noteworthy that Moses is here presented as being subject to ordinary human frailties, in possession of no superhuman or innate magical powers. Another interpretation, highly plausible, is that of Rashbam, according to which Moses held up a standard bearing some conspicuous symbol that signified the presence of God in the Israelite camp. (Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 95)

Peter Enns (b. 1961) summarizes:

Some commentaries suggest this is some sort of “magical” feat” performed by Moses, perhaps some power emanating from the staff. Others assign to Moses’ gesture a psychological explanation, that his raised hands are a sign of encouragement to the troops. Neither explanation seems satisfying...But can a better explanation be found?... No proposed explanation is problem-free. This problem is a classic example of what interpreters run into when attempting to explain a cryptic text. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 348)

Moses has raised his hands previously to produce miraculous results but not for an extended period (Exodus 9:22, 10:12, 14:16). Many have looked to the staff for answers as it is now called the “staff of God”, a term that has not been used since the item’s introduction in Exodus 4:20.

J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) describes:

Up to this point Moses’ use of the staff has been a simple matter of raising it and accomplishing the result, whether sign, plague, parting of the waters, or water from the rock. But this time the struggle is drawn out, to the point where Moses becomes so tired that from time to time he has to lower his arms...Interestingly...when Moses gets tired, the help does not come directly from God, but through Aaron and Hur, as each one supports one of Moses’s arms after seating him on a stone. What is this symbolism, of Moses seated on a stone, holding up his and God’s staff, and supported on both sides by Aaron and Hur? (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 122)

As Moses intervenes for the people and Aaron and Hur raise Moses’ hands, not their own, it is not surprising that many interpreters have seen this passage as an image of intercessory prayer.

Maxie D. Dunnam (b. 1934) comments:

The soldiers on the field of battle were not determining the issue of victory by themselves, but the intercessors on the mountain were playing an integral role. See that beautiful picture of those intercessors on the mountain in your imagination?...It’s a stirring picture—a picture of the Lord’s intercessor. (Dunnam, Exodus (Mastering the Old Testament), 214)

Many popular books on prayer prominently feature this story. In Too Busy Not To Pray, Bill Hybels (b. 1951) writes:

More than any other biblical passage, one story in the Old Testament has persuaded me that prayer yields significant results. It is found in Exodus 17:8-13...Moses stretches his arms toward heaven again and brings the matter to the Lord...Moses discovered that day that God’s prevailing power is released through prayer. (Hybels, Too Busy Not To Pray, 18-19)

In his book on intercessory prayer, Dutch Sheets (b. 1954) analyzes:

The victory was not decided by the strength or power of Israel’s army. If this had been the case, they would not have faltered when the staff was lowered. Nor was it a morale thing – they weren’t watching Moses for inspiration while in hand-to-hand conflict! An unseen battle in the heavenlies actually decided the outcome on the battlefield. And when the rod, representing the rule or authority of God, was lifted by the authorized leader of Israel, Joshua and the army prevailed. In other words, it was not power on the battlefield – though it was necessary – that was the deciding factor, but authority on the mountain. Authority is the key issue; power never had been. (Sheets, Intercessory Prayer: How God Can Use Your Prayers to Move Heaven and Earth, 190)

While the mechanics of how Moses’ arms correlated to victory are speculative, the text is clear that they did. In Israel’s first battle as a nation, the focus is on the hill, not the battlefield. The direction off stage upstages the actors on the stage. In modern sports terms, the camera is focused on the fans changing their posture or switching to their rally caps as it is the deciding factor in the contest. No exploits on the battlefield are remembered; only the result is recorded: victory.

How long can you hold up your arms? What would a national leader in Moses’ era have been expected to do during battle? Who is most responsible for the Israelites’ victory at Rephidim? Whose part in the story do you most relate to: the warriors, Aaron/Hur, Moses, Joshua? Who can you prop up spiritually when they are weakened? Who is praying for you? Where is God in this story?

God is not explicitly involved in this text. William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) acknowledges:

Unlike the previous wilderness episodes, Moses responds to the crisis without seeking divine instructions, at least so far as we are told. But he gives God proper credit in the end. (Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Notes and Comments (Anchor Bible), 617)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

After Amalek starts the battle, the initiative for the defense of Israel is taken entirely by Moses, demonstrating the leadership role he has assumed. God does not become the subject of a sentence until Exodus 17:14 but is not uninvolved in the prior verses. (Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 192)

Despite not being referenced categorically, in Moses’ actions, there is little doubt that the battle is God’s. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) comments:

Exodus 17:11 does not teach the efficacy of “prayer without ceasing” but rather the fact that Israelite holy war was God’s war. God reinforced this in the consciousness of Moses, Aaron, and Hur as well as the Israelite army by correlating the position of the staff with the fortunes of the army. It was important that the Israelites understand unmistakably that the only reason they could win against the Amalekites was that God was fighting for them, giving them the victory. The staff functioned in the case of this battle just as it had in the case of the plagues. As long as the staff of God was raised high, just as in the miraculous plagues and the miracle of the water from the rock immediately preceding, God’s decisive role was properly acknowledged symbolically and the army prevailed. When the staff was lowered (because Moses grew tired, as Exodus 17:12 makes explicit), “the Amalekites were winning.” Thus the staff portrayed God’s sovereignty in the consequences of battle. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 398)

Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) concludes:

The circumstances indicate that the power to wage holy war resides in the magical staff of God, not in Moses, and certainly not in Joshua or the Israelite warriors. The staff of God, is like a lightning rod at the summit of the hill channeling power down to the Israelites in the battle. When the antenna is down, the power ceases. The eventual weakness of Moses even to raise his arms underscores further that the power in the battle does not reside with him but with God. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 395)

Victory did not rest in Moses’ hands, but rather in the hands that they represented.

If Moses is a conduit of God’s power, why is he himself weakened in channeling it (Exodus 17:12; Mark 5:30)? Does God still decide wars today? What do you need to relinquish and place into God’s hands?

“I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.” - Martin Luther (1483-1546)