Rich Man, Poor Man (Luke 16:20)

Who was the beggar who lay at the rich man’s gate? Lazarus (Luke 16:20)

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is one of Jesus’ most intriguing illustrations (Luke 16:19-31). Appearing only in Luke’s gospel, the parable is directed at the Pharisees “who were lovers of money” (Luke 16:14). The tale depicts a rich man and a beggar who are acquainted in life and whose fortunes are reversed in the afterlife. Though the text recounts no action of either character, the beggar spends the afterlife at “Abraham’s bosom” while the rich man is relegated to Hades (Luke 16:22-23). Ultimately, the rich man asks that the beggar be sent with a message from beyond to his brothers on earth in hopes of producing their repentance (Luke 16:27-28). Being deemed futile, his request is denied (Luke 16:29-31).

The story is unique among Jesus’ parables as it is the only one to depict a scene in the afterlife. It is also the only parable in which a character is named. The poor beggar is called Lazarus (Luke 16:20).

“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. (Luke 16:19-21 NASB)

In Lazarus, Jesus paints a pathetic picture of abject poverty. Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) describes:

The picture is one of absolute degradation. A later rabbinic proverb says, “There are three whose life is no life; he who depends on the table of another, he who is ruled by his wife, and he whose body is burdened with sufferings.” Lazarus has two out of three. From society’s perspective, he has “no life” at all. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Volume 1: Matthew, Mark, Luke,136-37)

The rich man and poor man are presented as polar opposites in every way; both representing extreme cases on the affluence spectrum. Their descriptions are carefully balanced and the multiple details serve to accentuate the contrast as strongly as possible. On the surface, the rich man is in a far superior position than poor Lazarus.

Joel B. Green (b. 1956) observes:

The stage of Jesus’ parable is set by the extravagant parallelism resident in the depictions of the two main characters. The social distance between the two is continued through to the end, symbolized first by the gate, then by the “distance” (“far away,” Luke 16:23) and the “great chasm” fixed between them (Luke 16:26). The rich man is depicted in excessive, even outrageous terms, while Lazarus is numbered among society’s “expendables,” a man who had fallen prey to the ease with which, even in an advanced agrarian society, persons without secure landholdings might experience devastating downward mobility. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 605)

Bernard Brandon Scott (b. 1941) adds:

The introductions of the two men are closely parallel. The first man has his richness; the poor man has only his name, Lazarus. The introductions set in parallel rich and Lazarus...The introductory clauses are nicely balanced: the first man’s introduction ends with “rich,” and the second man’s begins with “poor.” Likewise, the first man’s introduction begins with the anonymous “man,” and the second ends with a proper name, Lazarus. Perhaps this may also indicate the purpose of naming the poor man, for the name means “he whom God helps.” The name Lazarus contrasts the two characters: one is full of possessions, and the other is empty except for a name, but the meaning of the name may well hold out a promise. (Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus,149)

Michael Card (b. 1957) summarizes:

Two individuals could not be more different. One is fabulously wealthy, dressed in his finest clothes and eating the finest food every day...The other is pitifully poor, covered with festering sores, and left abandoned at the gate. (Card, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination), 194)

Lazarus’ name is conspicuous. While it is not unheard to incorporate a proper name into a parable (Ezekiel 23:4), this marks the only time Jesus does so, not counting Abraham who appears in the same story (Luke 16:22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30).

Because of the inclusion of the proper name, it has been argued that Jesus is recounting an historical event. David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) explains:

The status of this narrative as a parable has sometimes been questioned. The objection attends to rhetorical framing of the story. Luke does not call it a parable, unusually, nor is it introduced with a comparative (“the kingdom of heaven is like unto...”); moreover this would be the only parable in which a character is given a name, Lazarus. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 202)

Though Jesus never categorizes this particular story as parabolic, presumably the descriptor from Luke 15:2 carries through chapter 16.

Klyne R. Snodgrass (b. 1944) refutes:

Preachers and certain people throughout church history sometimes have asserted that this story is not a parable but depicts reals people and the consequences of their lives. I am not aware of any modern scholar who would agree. Certainly Luke viewed this as a parable. It appears in a collection of parables, possibly stands chiastically parallel to the parable of the Rich Fool, and uses the exact same introductory words (anthrōpos tis) which Luke uses to introduce several other parables. This is without question a parable. (Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, 426)

As much of the story is a dialogue (Luke 16:24-31), it has been posed that Jesus names the beggar as a literary device for narrative convenience: the story flows better with a character named. Still, the choice of name is intentional and the question remains why this particular name is selected.

Lazarus was a common name. Géza Vermes (b. 1924) views it as a Galilean corruption, representative of Jesus’ distinctive dialect (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 53). The name has entered the English language through the word “lazar” which means “a poor and diseased person, usually with a loathsome disease; especially a leper” (Oxford English Dictionary).

Among its effects, naming the beggar Lazarus undermines the potential assumption that his unenviable earthly condition correlates to punishment for sin. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) assesses:

The rich man he is named...Λάζαρος, i.e. la‘zar, an abbreviation of ’el‘āzār, ‘He (whom) God helps’...Its significance may be that it hints at the piety of the poor man, although the general use of πτωχος in Luke (Luke 4:18, 6:20, 7:22, 21:3) already indicates that the poor are in general pious and the recipients of God’s grace (cf. Luke 14:13, 21). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 635)

Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) adds:

Jesus may have named the poor beggar intentionally as a pun in order to help his hearers understand that this poor man (“whom God has helped”) should be identified with such poor as referred to in Luke 4:18, 6:20, 7:22 and later in Luke 21:3, i.e., he was a poor believer...If Jesus intended this pun, there is still the question of whether Luke recognized the play on the name and whether Luke’s readers would have understood it. This is doubtful. Regardless, Luke did not call attention to the possible pun. Yet Luke continued the theme of reversal by giving the forgotten, poor man a name while the rich man went nameless. The plight of the poor man is...described by means of a fourfold contrast between the rich man and Lazarus...For similar contrasts and reversals, cf. Luke 1:51-53, 3:5, 6:20-26, etc. (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 423)

The name exonerates Lazarus and he becomes one of many examples of righteous poor people in Luke’s gospel. Still, it is doubtful that Luke’s Greek speaking audience would have gleaned the significance of Lazarus’ name.

The Greek name Lazarus is equivalent to the Hebrew Eliezer. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) documents:

The name had numerous religious associations for the Jews. Among those who had the name were Aaron’s son and successor as high priest (Exodus 6:23), a priest who dedicated the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12:42), a brother of the Jewish patriot Judas Maccabeus (I Maccabees 2:5), a respected martyr of the same period (II Maccabees 6:18-23), and Abraham’s chief trusted servant (Genesis 15:2). Many suggest that the latter figure is the source of the name because of Abraham’s presence in the story. (Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 1364)

As Bock notes, some have connected the character to Abraham’s loyal servant, Eliezer of Damascus (Genesis 15:2). The Septuagint even renders the name Eliezer as Lazaros (Genesis 15:2). In Jewish thought, Eliezer is an exemplar of loyalty and covenant service.

William R. Herzog II (b. 1944) relays:

J. Duncan M. Derrett (b. 1922) has proposed...that Lazarus is “none other than ‘Eliezer, Abraham’s steward,” mentioned in Genesis 15:2, who according to midrashic tradition, was sent by Abraham “to the land to observe how the ‘tenant’ [were] dealing with [their] property” and their obligation to show hospitality...Because Elizer became a well-known figure in Jewish Haggadah, the suggestion, though difficult to assess is not impossible. (Herzog, Parables As Subversive Speech: Jesus As Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 233)

Despite sharing a common name and association with Abraham, Eliezer of Damascus was hardly a beggar.

Others have connected the story to the Lazarus famously raised from the dead by Jesus (John 11:1-44). Scholars have argued that one story has influenced the other and arguments go both ways as to which anecdote influenced the other.

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) examines:

If there is a connection between the Lazarus of the Luke account and the Lazarus of John 11, what is the nature of this relationship? There are at least two possible explanations. First, it has been argued that the Johnannine account of the raising of Lazarus is in fact a fictional illustration based upon the Lukan story: Lazarus was indeed raised from the dead (as the rich man had requested) as a witness, yet even then Jesus’ opponents did not believe (as Abraham had predicted). A second explanation, and one that is preferred to the first, is that because of the rough similarity between the point of the Lukan story and the experience of Lazarus in John 11, early in the manuscript tradition a certain Christian scribe (or scribes) inserted the name Lazarus. Although this suggestion must remain speculative, since there is no early manuscript evidence of the story without the name, it provides a reasonable explanation to the...questions raised above, for it explains why a proper name has appeared and why this name was Lazarus of all names. (Evans, Matthew-Luke (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 418)

Despite the common name, Lazarus of Bethany, like Eliezer of Damascus, is a man of means, not a beggar. Also, if Luke was privy to the story of Lazarus’ resurrection and wished to reference it, it remains to be seen why he would not simply include it.

In life, Lazarus’s name, with its allusion to divine assistance, seemingly mocked him. Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) writes, “The choice of name cannot be accidental. The man’s only help is in God, rather than persons around him (Hutrgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, 111).”

The name is also an indictment against his peers; incriminating those who did not help him. The fact that the rich man is well aware of Lazarus’ identity, calling him by name, further inculpates him (Luke 16:24).

Peter Rhea Jones (b. 1937) expounds:

The name Lazarus is clearly a Jewish name. The poor man, then, was Jewish. The rich man was Jewish. Thus, there is an incident of unbrotherliness, a denial of covenantal obligations, and a deep identification by the teller of the parable with the Jewish poor. The very person whom the rich man will not aid, God helps. Thus, the name is the exegetical clue correcting the one-dimensional idea of reversal and implying Lazarus’ trust in God’s grace, though this is not the primary thrust of the parable. If the parable were teaching that the poor were automatically blessed in the afterlife, there would be no need for the specific name Lazarus. (Jones Studying the Parables of Jesus, 173-74)

Since tragically no help came during his earthly life, Lazarus’ name may anticipate the afterlife, accurately predicting his fate: God would indeed help him.

Compare and contrast the rich man and Lazarus. Out of all of the characters in all of his parables, why does Jesus name Lazarus alone? Why does no one help Lazarus? Do you help the poor in your community?

It is significant that the beggar and not the rich man is named. To remedy this disproportionate situation, the rich man is often called “Dives”, Latin for “rich man”.

Justo L. González (b. 1937) relays:

In Luke 16:19, without further introduction, Jesus begins the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Traditionally, the rich man has been called “Dives” or “Divas”. The Vulgate says, “homo quida erat dives” (which simply means that a certain man was rich), and out of this the supposed name of the man has evolved. But the parable does not give the man’s name. This is significant as one more of Luke’s many examples of the great reversal. Normally, it is important people who have a name. They have recognition. They are somebody. But in the parable the rich and apparently important man has no name, and the poor and insignificant man does. From the very beginning of the parable, Jesus is illustrating what he has just said, that “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God [Luke 16:15].” (González, Luke (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 195)

Both God and the rich man know Lazarus’ name. He is the common bond, the figure everyone in the story knows. Frederick W. Danker (1920-2012) argues that naming Lazarus indicates that he enjoys true personhood, whereas the rich man, despite his worldly riches, lacks genuine identity (Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, 283).

David E. Garland (b. 1947) comments:

The name...gives Lazarus a measure of personhood. The rich man has no identity except as a rich man...Jesus may have chosen this name to hint at the contrast between the self-sufficient rich man, who helps himself (and helps himself too much), and the utterly dependent Lazarus, whom no one helps except God and whose angels whisk him away to a blessed afterlife. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 669)

The world does not traditionally concern itself with the names of the poor. History may not have acknowledged the poor beggar, but God did. On the surface, the rich man has it all while Lazarus is of little importance. Yet, Lazarus is significant to God. As are we all.

Does calling the rich man “Dives” detract from Jesus’ intent? Who is truly the rich man in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus? What would you name this parable? How do you feel when someone calls you by name? Whose names do you know? Do you know your last waitress’ name? Do you know the name of anyone who is homeless like Lazarus? Where does your sense of self worth come from? Do you truly know that you matter to God?

“Lord, when I feel that what I’m doing is insignificant and unimportant, help me to remember that everything I do is significant and important in your eyes, because you love me and you put me here, and no one else can do what I am doing in exactly the way I do it.” - Brennan Manning (b. 1934), Souvenirs of Solitude: Finding Rest in Abba’s Embrace, p. 73

With Friends Like These... (Job 2:11)

Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar were friends of whom? Job

Job and his tale of woe have become synonymous with suffering. While the majority of the book that bears his name is a philosophical dialogue, the prologue relays how his vast holdings, children and good health are systematically eradicated (Job 1:1-2:13). When tragedy strikes one of their core group, Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, spring into action and plot to console their friend (Job 2:11).

Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this adversity that had come upon him, they came each one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite; and they made an appointment together to come to sympathize with him and comfort him. (Job 2:11 NASB)

The friends opt to make the visit together; such awkward visits are always more pleasant when conducted in groups. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar assemble around Job in much the same way as God’s council gathers around Yahweh in the preceding chapter (Job 1:6).

The text does not indicate how the group learns of Job’s plight. The Targum relays that the friends are alerted by the sight of garden trees withering, meat regressing into raw meat while being eaten, and their wine transmuting to blood.

Unlike the four messengers who appear in hurried procession to inform Job of his catastrophic losses (Job 1:14, 16, 17, 18), Job’s friends’ trip is planned and lengthy (Job 2:11-13). As it took time for the news to reach them, they had to make long-distance arrangements to meet and then had to travel a considerable distance to reach Job’s side, it was possibly months between Job’s trials and his friends’ arrival.

Stephen M. Hooks (b. 1947) speculates:

The fact that these men met by appointment suggests that they know one another as well as Job. How they have learned of Job’s misfortune we are not told. News of Job must have spread far and wide. These developments imply the passing of some time, and information gleaned from the dialogues confirms this. In Job 7:3, for example, Job speaks of “months” of pain he has already endured. (Hooks, Job (College Press NIV Commentary), 79)

Job’s friends will serve as major players for the remainder of the book. Aside from their names and places of residence, little is revealed about them.

Eliphaz (whose name means “God is fine gold” or “God conquers”) has been identified with Edom as both his name and nationality (Teman) appear in Edomite genealogies (Genesis 36:4, 15). Some have speculated that Eliphaz is the oldest of Job’s counselors as he is listed first (Job 2:11, 42:9), speaks first, gives longer and more mature speeches and perhaps most tellingly God addresses him as representative of the group (Job 42:7).

Of Job’s counselors’ hometowns, only Eliphaz’s can be definitively located. Teman was a principle sight in the northern region of Edom (Ezekiel 25:13; Genesis 36:34). The location was known for its wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8).

The name Bildad (possibly meaning “son of Hadad”) does not appear elsewhere in the Bible. Bildad is a Shuhite which some associate with Shuah, a son born to Abraham by Keturah (Genesis 25:2). Others connect Bildad’s region to Sūhu, a site referenced in Akkadian documents located on the Middle Euphrates River below the mouth of the Khabur River.

Zophar (“young bird”) hails from Naamah. Naamah is both the name of a female descendant of Cain (Genesis 4:22) and an Ammonite princess who marries Solomon (I Kings 14:21). A site known as ‘Ain Sopar on the road between Beiruit and Damascus has been identified as a possible location of Naamah.

While the geography involving Job’s friends cannot be pinpointed with any certainty, it can be determined that ,like Job himself, his friends live outside of Israel and they descend upon him from diverse places. Job has international connections.

Job’s friends are literally three wise men. All three are old (Job 32:6), possibly older than Job (Job 15:10) and presumably all are eastern patriarchs.

Samuel E. Balentine (b. 1950) comments:

Three “wise” friends journey toward Uz, where Job’s life had exemplified Edenic harmony. Now, “evil” (Job 2:11: rā‘āh, NRSV: “troubles”) has fallen upon this once paradisiacal world, and the one who had always “turned away from evil (rā‘; Job 1:8, 2:3) is “sitting among the ashes.” With such a scenario, the prologue suggests that a world like Job’s requires the best insights wisdom can offer. (Balentine, Job (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 66-67)

The theology presented in Job will not come from anonymous voices; each of Job’s friends has a distinct personality. It has even been suggested that they represent varying strands of philosophy.

In addition to their social standing, these men are well intentioned friends (Job 2:11), not detached messengers (Job 1:14, 16, 17, 18). They have been described as comforters, companions, counselors and friends. The Hebrew rea’ is a very common word and in this context is universally translated “friends” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). James L. Crenshaw (b. 1934) defines, “The noun re‘a indicates an intimate, a companion from whom one accepts advice (Crenshaw, Reading Job: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 45).”

Norman C. Habel (b. 1932) analyzes:

These visitors have come to perform a traditional role of the friend in ancient society, namely, to “console” (nwd) and “comfort” (nhm). A “friend” (rēa‘) is characterized by deep loyalty and close bonds of faithfulness (hesed; cf. Proverbs 18:24; II Samuel 16:17)...It is precisely this loyalty which Job later accuses his friends of violating, thereby not fulfilling their true role as “friends”. (Habel , The Book of Job: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 97)

John E. Hartley (b. 1940) expounds:

The term for friends has a wide range of meanings, including an intimate counselor (I Chronicles 27:33), a close friend (Deuteronomy 13:6), a party in a legal dispute (Exodus 22:9). Friends often solemnized their relationship with a covenant, promising to care for each other under all kinds of circumstances. The relationship between Job and his three friends gives every evidence of being based on a covenant (Job 6:14-15, 21-23, 27). Such a relationship was characterized by loyal love (hesed; e.g., Jonathan and David, I Samuel 20:14-15)...With the noblest intentions, these three earnestly desired to help Job bear his sorrow. (Hartley, The Book of Job (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 85)

Their visit constitutes a grand gesture. Job’s companions take great efforts to see him and risk contagion and public censure to be with their friend in his time of need.

Mike Mason (b. 1952) observes:

What a blessing it would be to have just one friend like this in time of need—one friend who would drop everything at a moment’s notice, travel any distance, and stick by one’s bedside night and day for an entire week! Job, apparently, had not just one such friend-in-need, but three. Even in the Bible we do not often hear of people having this many close friends. One memorable exception is the paralytic of Mark 2:3-4, who had no less than four friends who loved him so much that they actually went to all the trouble and embarrassment of carrying him through a large crowd and then digging down through a roof in order to get him to Jesus. In the New Testament, understandably, heart-to-heart friendship becomes an increasingly common phenomenon, and the long genealogical lists of the Old Testament gradually give way to a very different sort of list, such as the one in the last chapter of Romans in which Paul gives us just a glimpse into the vast network of people who, far more than being mere friends, were his true family, his brothers and sisters in the Lord. These are blood ties indeed, for here the family tree is the cross. (Mason, The Gospel According to Job: An Honest Look at Pain and Doubt from the Life of One Who Lost Everything, 49)

What makes a person a friend? Who are your best friends? Who would travel to meet you during your darkest hour? When have friends come to your rescue during a time of need? When have you seen someone suffer? What did you do? Why do Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar visit Job? What can they possibly do to ameliorate Job’s situation?

Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar’s visit has a two-fold objective (Job 2:11). Gerald H. Wilson (1945-2005) appraises:

The purpose of the friends’ visit is to sympathize with him and comfort him. The Hebrew verb for “sympathize” is nud, which denotes shaking the head or body back and forth as an indication of taking on the pain or grief of another. The Hebrew for “comfort” is nkhm, which normally means (in the Piel stem as here) to comfort with words—in contrast to the silent waiting that ultimately characterizes the friends’ vigil. (Wilson, Job (New International Biblical Commentary), 33)

Though they plan to bring words of comfort and have a long trip in which to gather their thoughts, when they arrive, they realize that they have no words for this occasion. Sometimes there is nothing that can be said. In these instances, silence is golden.

In a touching scene, Job’s friends bind themselves to Job even in his suffering. They simply sit with him, saying nothing, for an entire week (Job 2:13). James A. Wharton (b. 1927) analyzes:

Like God’s servant in Isaiah 52:14, Job is so ravaged by suffering that he is “marred...beyond human semblance,” so that his friends cannot recognize in him the Job they had known before. Rather than turning away from this horror, however, they join Job in the signs of ritual mourning (compare Job 1:20 and Job 2:12), indicating that Job’s distress is their distress, to be lamented before God. The high-water mark of their compassion comes during these seven days when they found grace just to be there with Job—and to keep their mouths shut, “for they saw that his suffering was very great.” Consoling words rarely improve on the silent comfort of a friend’s presence. (Wharton, Job (Westminster Bible Companion), 23)

Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) imagines:

As he sits there covered with skin ulcers that have begun erupting with pus, swelling his body with fever and giving him a maddening itch that will not cease, he looks up into the faces of three friends who arrive on the scene. They sit and stare at the man for seven days and nights without uttering a word. Just imagine. First, they don’t recognize him, which tells you something of the extent of his swelling and the sores that covered his body. The sight causes them to be at a loss for words for a full week. (Swindoll, Job: A Man of Heroic Endurance, 5)

Beth Lueders (b. 1959) commends:

Now, that’s a ministry of presence and a ministry of waiting. These guys don’t check Job and themselves into a luxurious hotel room with a wide-screen TV. They don’t pull up overstuffed couches or recliners. They don’t hit the hot tub, shoot some hoops, or go off-roading in their souped up-chariots...The four men just hunkered down on the ground...in silence...for nearly 170 hours. (Sorry, gals, but I know of no woman who’d even attempt that!) And this no-talk gathering around Job is no feat to set a Guinness World Record or to win Survivor: The Land of Uz. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are three amigos who just want to comfort their hurting friend. (Lueders, Two Days Longer: Discovering More of God as You Wait For Him, 146)

Simply by their very presence Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar convey compassion and sympathy, enter into Job’s sorrow and demonstrate that they are in this together with him.

Despite being Gentiles, Job’s friends follow Jewish tradition. Harold S. Kushner (b. 1935) notes, “In accordance with the custom followed by observant Jews to this day, Job’s comforters sit quietly until Job breaks the silence in an outburst of pain and grief (Kushner, The Book of Job: When Bad Things Happened to a Good Person, 49).”

Sitting seven days in silence demonstrates true compassion. Unfortunately, in time, silence gives way to speech (Job 3:1) and a debate ensues. As soon as the friends speak, their sympathy is replaced by professional pride and the need to defend God (Job 13:8). Eliphaz (Job 4:1-5:27, 15:1-35, 22:1-30) and Bildad (Job 8:1-22, 18:1-21, 25:1:5) address Job three times each while Zophar speaks twice (Job 11:1-20, 20:1-29). They follow conventional wisdom, concluding that Job’s suffering must be the result of some deep rooted personal sin. In doing so they become disputants, each time confronting Job with the sin that they perceive he has committed.

Job’s own friends prove to be the biggest challenge the Accuser throws at him. Their arrival symbolizes bringing in the big guns. What could not have been predicted was who they would be firing upon.

Steven J. Lawson (b. 1951) determines:

Next came the greatest assault Satan would hurl at Job—the counsel that came from his friends. What the devil spoke through Job’s wife [Job 2:9], he would speak even more convincingly through his three friends. Satan’s lies can be spoken through another person, even from the lips of another believer (Matthew 16:22-23). (Lawson, Job (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 27)

The fact that Job’s friends account for his greatest assault is evidence by the results. His companions do what the calamities could not: they break Job. Instead of friends, they function more as the requisite three witnesses needed to convict by Hebrew law (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; II Corinthians 13:1). Job will eventually question their friendship (Job 6:14) and God, when finally intervening, expresses divine displeasure with his “defenders” (Job 42:7). Throughout the dialogue, Job wants God to start talking (Job 13:22) and his friends to stop. Unfortunately for most of the book, he experiences just the opposite.

Even so, Job’s friends, at one time, model true friendship at its finest. Ewan R. Kelly reminds:

When Job’s friends were willing in the face of his suffering to be with him and say nothing, not offering him advice, sharing their worldview, not judging him or asking about his feelings, at this time they were truly his comforters. (Kelly, Marking Short Lives: Constructing and Sharing Rituals Following Pregnancy Loss, 87)

This “ministry of presence” exhibited by Job’s friends is often what is most needed in crisis. Frank G. Honeycutt (b. 1957) advises:

Shared silence (see Job 2:13) is better than quick Hallmark-like pastoral sound bites. There will be times, says Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932), when we won’t feel like doing this ministry and even the church will lure clergy to mouth theological nonsense that goes down easily. However, pastors “are not the minister[s] of our changing desires, or our-time conditioned understanding of our needs, or our secularized hopes for something better. With these vows of ordination we are lashing you fast to the mast of word and sacrament so that you will be unable to respond to the siren voices.” (Honeycutt, The Truth Shall Make You Odd: Speaking with Pastoral Integrity in Awkward Situations, 98)

Richard J. Foster (b. 1942) and Julia L. Roller (b. 1976) conclude:

Job has lost his children, all that he owns, and is now covered head to foot with “loathsome sores” (Job 2:7). The friends come to Job in his need. They weep with him and sit quietly with him. Their quiet ministry of presence speaks loudly to those who think that only words heal. (Foster and Roller, A Year with God: Living Out the Spiritual Disciplines, 322)

What would you have said to Job? How would you characterize Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar? Do you think that Job still considered them friends at the end of his story? How could they have best achieved their goals of providing sympathy and comfort (Job 2:11)? When in your life has a true friend not acted like one? When have you thought you were acting for God when in reality you were aiding the opposition? Have you ever experienced the “ministry of presence”?

“It is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart.” - Mahatma Ganhdi (1869-1948)

Camels and Needles (Matthew 19:24)

Complete: “It is harder for a ____ man to enter heaven than for a _____ to go through the eye of a ______.” Rich, camel, needle (Matthew 19:24)

Late in his ministry, Jesus is approached by an unnamed man in Judea who has come to be known as the “rich young ruler” (Matthew 19:16-22). The wealthy man asks Jesus, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16). He leaves the encounter saddened when Jesus suggests that he liquidate all of his assets and give the funds to the poor (Matthew 19:21-22). After the man exits the scene, Jesus capitalizes on the teachable moment, remarking to his disciples about the high degree of difficulty for a rich person “to enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:23). Not content to leave the issue, Jesus then intensifies his thought with an analogy using familiar objects (Matthew 19:24). He quips:

“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24 NASB)

The repetition underscores the thought as though Jesus uses “again” 17 times in Matthew, he does so only twice in conjunction with the emphatic preface “I say to you” (Matthew 18:19, 19:24). Jesus’ colorful illustration is not only an attention grabber; more importantly it advances the task he describes from being difficult (Matthew 19:23) to impossible (Matthew 19:24-26).

Jesus’ words are comparable to philosophers who have contended that wealth prevents the study of their field (e.g. Plutarch [45-120], De Cupidate Diviarum 526; Seneca the Younger [4 BCE-65 CE], Epistles 17.3). In 178 CE, Celsus, who produced the earliest comprehensive attack on Christianity, claimed that Jesus took the idea from Plato (427-347 BCE) who had written that it was impossible for a good man to be rich (Laws V.743a).

As he commonly did, Jesus incorporates hyperbole, contrasting the smallest aperture with the largest beast of burden known to the region. The big animal simply cannot squeeze through the small hole. Californian evangelist “Sister” Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944) used a live camel to demonstrate this point in one of her “illustrated sermons” in 1925.

John Proctor (b. 1952) expounds:

The camel is a fine long-distance runner on sand, but a total non-starter when it comes to sliding through narrow openings. Jesus seems to have found its irregular shape splendidly bizarre (see also Matthew 23:24), and here he offers the ridiculous picture of using a camel to thread a needle. All the probabilities are stacked against success. Rich Christians need a special kind of grace and wisdom, to steward humbly and generously what they have been given. (Proctor, Matthew: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer (Daily Bible Commentary), 163)

Though striking, the image is not entirely unique. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) comments:

Camels were common beasts of burden among traveling Arabs...known for their strength...but not particularly for gracefulness...Jesus apparently employs a common figure of speech when he speaks of a camel passing through a needle’s eye. In Babylonia, where the largest land animals were elephants (cf. Achilles Tatius Leucippe and Clitophon 4.3.5; Lucian [125-180] Lover of Lies 24), Jewish teachers could depict what was impossible or close to impossible as “an elephant passing through a needle’s eye” (Babylonian Talmud Berakot 55b; Babylonian Talmud Baba Mesi‘a. 38b). In Palestine, where the largest land animal and beast of burden was a camel (cf. Matthew 23:24; Babylonian Talmud Ketubbot 67a), describing the impossible as a “camel passing through a needle’s eye” may have been a common expression as well. (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 477)

The temptation to tame Jesus always exists and this text has been mitigated often as many theories have been posited which soften Jesus’ words. One way this has been done is on linguistic grounds as a few manuscripts have the textual variant kamilon (“rope”) instead of its homonym kamelon (“camel”). This transforms the subject from a large animal to the cable used to tie a ship to a dock.

W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) explain:

A few manuscripts (e.g. 59 61) and versions (e.g. Armenian, Georgian) have the similar-sounding κάμιλος = ‘rope’ or ‘ship’s cable’; so also a scholion attributed to Origen [184-253] (cf. G.W.H. Lampe [1912-1980], s.v.), and Cyril of Alexandria [387-444], Commentary on Luke 123; Theophylact [1050-1107] and Euthymius Zigabenus [12th century] mention this as the opinion of ‘some’...The same result has been obtained in modern times via conjectures about the original Aramaic. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 19-28 (International Critical Commentary), 51)

R.T. France (1938-2012) rejects this hypothesis:

The later substitution of kamilon, “rope” or “cable,” for kamēlon, “camel,” ...is not attested in Greek before this time, and Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887] and Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] suggest that it may have been coined in an attempt to evade the sense of this text. But if so, it was not a very clever attempt, since it is hardly less ludicrous to attempt to put a cable through the eye of a needle than it is a camel. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 738)

Though few modern commentators accept it, the most widely circulated mitigating of the expression claims that it refers to a small door in the gate of a walled eastern city known as “the eye of the needle”. Such openings allowed pedestrians to enter a city without the need for the large gates to be opened as they would have been for a camel train. It has been posited that a camel might be forced through such a gate, albeit with difficulty. This reading has been spiritualized further by notions that in order to do so, the camel need be stripped of its load.

The theory is decidedly late, being first attested in the Middle Ages by Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107). Despite there being no evidence for such a claim, even today locals present the “site” of this gate to unsuspecting pilgrims in the Holy Land.

David E. Garland (b. 1947) refutes:

There is no basis for the widely circulated tradition that the eye of the needle was the name of a gate in Jerusalem. Walled cities had smaller gates beside or built into a larger gate so that people could enter when the larger gate was closed. Large animals might be able to squeeze through such a gate...Luke uses a different word in Greek for “needle (belonē, Luke 18:25), than Mark (raphis). If a gate has been known as “The Needle’s Eye,” it seems likely that only one Greek term would have been used. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], (Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 63)

Even if there were such a gate, context clearly dictates that Jesus is illumining something that is impossible not merely difficult (Matthew 19:25-26). Church father Jerome (347-420) concluded: “one impossibility is compared with another (Against the Pelagians 1.10).”

Watering down Jesus’ teaching is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) warns:

The vice of the teaching that says, “the needle’s eye is a low gate in the Middle East that camels must stoop to enter” is that it tells the well-to-do that by acts of humility they can get into the kingdom, that they can keep their comforts and even continue their drive for financial enrichment if they will only be a little humble in the process. This teaching turns Jesus’ teaching in its head — it teaches how to be covetous and Christian at the same time. “The fact that such minimizing interpretations [as the cable or the gate] have been thought up is itself an eloquent comment on the passage”. (Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28, 305)

The remark is also an exemplar of Jesus’ humor, serving as a one-liner or punchline. Lessening its force spoils Jesus’ joke. Christian humorist Grady Nutt (1934-1982) observes:

Humor is the capacity to describe. It takes the tangible and uses it to picture—to parable—the intangible. “It is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle”...Jesus was called teacher more often than by any other title. Humor, parable, description were the basic tools of his trade. (Nutt, So Good, So Far, 143)

In his book, The Humor of Christ, Elton Trueblood (1900-1994) acknowledges:

Of all the mistakes we make in regard to the humor of Christ, perhaps the worst mistake is our failure, or our unwillingness, to recognize that Christ deliberately used preposterous statements to get His point across. When we take a deliberately preposterous statement and, from a false sense of piety, try to force some literal truth out of it, the result is often grotesque. The playful, when interpreted with humorless seriousness, becomes ridiculous. An excellent illustration of this is a frequent handling of the gigantic dictum about the rich man and the needle’s eye. (Trueblood, The Humor of Christ, 46-47)

Jesus’ image is intended to be outlandish. Absurd juxtaposition is actually characteristic of his teaching, e.g. Matthew 23:24 refers to the equally ridiculous swallowing of a camel.

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

Jesus often exaggerates hugely to make his point. It’s like saying, ‘You couldn’t get a Rolls-Royce into a matchbox.’ The point is not that you might achieve it if you tried very hard, or that there was a particular type of small garage called a ‘matchbox’; the point is precisely that it’s unthinkable. That’s the moment when all human calculations and possibilities stop, and God’s new possibilities start. (Wright, Matthew For Everyone: Part Two, 53)

It is not surprising that so much effort has been made to soften a statement of Jesus’ that is critical of the economic elite. Most of us want to be rich and instinctively reject any deterrent to this aim.

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) interprets:

Our temptation is to think that Jesus’s reply is intended to “let us off the hook.” Being rich is a problem, we may think, but God will take care of us, the rich, the only way God can. Yet such a response fails to let the full weight of Jesus’s observation about wealth have the effect it should. We cannot serve God and mammon (Matthew 6:24). Jesus’s reply challenges not only our wealth, but out very conception of salvation. To be saved, to be made a member of the church through baptism, means that our lives are no longer our own. We are made vulnerable to one another in a manner such that what is ours can no longer be free the claims of others. As hard as it may be to believe, Jesus makes clear that salvation entails our being made vulnerable through the loss of our possessions. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible),174)

The term “rich” need not be limited to its traditional monetary connotation. Myron S. Augsburger (b. 1929) advises:

We can paraphrase “rich man” to mean “man of privilege” in our application, for riches are not all material. It may be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a professor, a doctor, a lawyer, a bishop, a nurse, a teacher, a businessman, etc., to get involved in the kingdom of heaven now! In any position of privilege there is the danger that the status and power become primary. In T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)’s play Murder in the Cathedral there is the line, “They who serve the greater cause have the greater danger of the cause serving them.” (Augsburger, Matthew (Mastering the New Testament), 230)

This passage should put modern readers on the defensive as we need not be wealthy by the standards of society to be deemed “rich”.

Is it possible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? Why have commentators historically tried so hard to soften Jesus’ phrasing? Have you ever said something in jest only to have had it interpreted literally? How do you think that Jesus would word this thought today? Do you consider yourself rich? How do you define “rich”? Is the intent of this passage to discourage wealth? Why is it so hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven? What obstacles does wealth present?

Though the saying is featured in all three Synoptic gospels (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), only in Matthew are the disciples said to be “very astonished” by it (Matthew 19:25). The counterintuitive claim shocks their sensibilities. Unlike many modern preachers, Jesus rejects the presumption that prosperity is synonymous with divine blessing.

Then, as now, wealth was generally regarded as a mark of God’s favor (Psalm 1:3). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) analyzes:

The disciples’ astonishment is due to the widely held belief that wealth was a sign of righteousness and virtue...For the pagan world, note Seneca the Elder [54 BCE-39 CE]’s claim that wealth reflects a person’s virtue (Controversies 2.1.17). From the Jewish side see Deuteronomy 28:1-14, which says that if Israel is loyal to the covenant with Yahweh, the Lord will make them abound in prosperity (see also Psalm 112:3; Proverbs 3:13-16, 8:12-18; Song of Solomon 5:16-18; Philo [20 BCE--50 CE], On the Migration of Abraham 18.104). No text is clearer than Job. The books says that Job is righteous (Job 1:8) and his household’s wealth a divine blessing (Job 1:10). When Job loses his wealth, his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar interpret his loss of wealth as punishment for sin. If one is virtuous or righteous, so the assumption goes, then one will be wealthy. If wealth is a mark of righteousness, then the disciples’ question makes sense. (Talbert, Matthew (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 237)

Where the populace saw riches as a manifestation of divine blessing, Jesus viewed wealth as a hindrance to spiritual progress. In many ways, Jesus is merely returning to the basics of his preaching ministry from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3, 6:24).

Michael Green (b. 1930) characterizes:

Money tends to make us selfish, materialistic, independent of God and of our fellows, and distracted with methods of retaining our wealth. Wealth leads to an overconfidence which is the very antithesis of the childlike spirit of trusting dependence on the goodness and mercy of God. It is perfectly evident. It had just happened in front of their eyes, in the person of the rich young man. Wealth was something Jesus set his own face against. Christians who have great possessions are in great peril. (Green, The Message of Matthew (Bible Speaks Today), 209)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) speculates:

If we take at face value the statements of the rich young man, it is not that he is an evil man, an oppressor, or an extortioner...The problem with this man is not that he is dishonorable; the problem is that he is rich. The problem is not with the evil he has done to others, but with the evil his wealth is doing to him. Because he is rich, it is hard for him to surrender to God. He finds it painfully difficult to become humble like a child. His wealth reinforces his commitment to the present age and to his own status in it; his wealth underscores his self-sufficiency...Being rich...simply intensifies the basic human desire for self-justification. The disciples, who are not rich, quickly realize that Jesus is speaking about more than the moneyed rich: Jesus’ word embraces all those who, in any way, are rich unto themselves—in short, the whole of humanity...The kingdom calls for total surrender to the will of God, a demand forever defeated by human pride and self-sufficiency. (Long, Matthew (Westminster Bible Companion), 222)

For Jesus’ disciples the thought is startlingly horrific and for once, the disciples get the point exactly; often more so than many modern readers. The disciples ask the question we might: “Then who can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25).

Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) notes:

While this statement [Matthew 19:24] may strike us as an exaggeration, it does not astonish us as much as the disciples’ response: “Who then can be saved?” Why are they so dumbfounded? None of them were wealthy. Why should they regard the problem of the rich as engulfing them all? Here we must remember that the young man has been presented as a model citizen: decent, law-abiding, charitable, and religious. His wealth signifies to the disciples that he has been blessed by God. If such a person is not acceptable to God, what hope is there for the rest of us?...By grace and grace alone, can we be admitted to the kingdom. While the impediment facing the wealthy is particularly serious, it is present to all. Even poor people insist on defining themselves and others by what they possess (or lack). The world is too much with us, and we become “old” too soon. How can we turn and become children of God’s world? For us this is impossible, but with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26). (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 228)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) concludes:

The key point..has to do with the more general issue that is raised by the disciples’ astonished question, “Who then can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25). Jesus; answer is that salvation does not come from human resources but from God alone. The young man asked, What good thing shall I do? (Matthew 19:16) and insisted, “All these things I have observed, what I still lack.” He assumes that entering into the kingdom of heaven is something that he can bid for and pull off on his own (see Matthew 8:19). Whether one is rich or poor, salvation does not come from human achievement but is a gift from God to those who follow Jesus. Only God’s gift of a new heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26) will enable radical obedience. (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel, 207)

Jesus fully understood humanity’s fundamental problem: we are incapable of saving ourselves. The encounter with the rich young ruler is immediately preceded by Jesus’ call to become a child (Matthew 19:13-15). Children do not operate with an assumption of self-sufficiency and grasping the need for dependence is critical as salvation is impossible for humans to produce. But only for humans.

Impossible is not in God’s vocabulary. With God all things are possible (Genesis 18:14; Job 42:2; Zechariah 8:6; Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37, 18:27). That God can squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle is evidenced at the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel when Jesus is assisted by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57). Joseph is a rich man who appears to have found his way squarely within the confines of the kingdom of heaven.

How is Matthew 19:24 good news? Does Jesus’ statement astonish you? Do you typically interpret a person’s wealth as being indicative of blessing? Is it any harder for a rich person to gain admittance to the kingdom of heaven than a poor person? If not, why does Jesus underscore wealth in this passage? What do you value more: spiritual or financial growth (Matthew 6:24)?

“It’s kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney (1901-1966)

The Memory Remains (Proverbs 10:7)

Complete: “The memory of _______________ is a blessing, the name of the wicked will rot.” The righteous (Proverbs 10:7)

The tenth chapter of Proverbs is a collection of “proverbs of Solomon” (Proverbs 10:1). Each verse in the section is comprised of two contrasting statements with the word “but” connecting the two lines while accentuating their differences (Proverbs 10:1-32). Despite presenting opposites the lines reenforce one another, a literary device known as antithetic parallelism.

Amid this context, Proverbs 10:6-11 forms a unit lauding the advantages of righteous living, always with one eye on the alternative. Proverbs 10:7 asserts that the righteous leave an everlasting impression that serves as a continual blessing while the wicked will eventually be forgotten.

The memory of the righteous is blessed,
But the name of the wicked will rot. (Proverbs 10:7 NASB)

The theme of the immortality of the righteous and the ephemeralness of the wicked will recur later in the chapter as well (Proverbs 10:25, 30). Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) comments:

The topic is the manner in which the righteous and the wicked live on in the memory of their children and community. The memory of one type remains alive in blessings such as “May you be as blessed as X!” whereas the memory of the other rots away like their bodies. “Rot” is in the final position and springs the surprise. (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 113)

In Hebrew, the direct correlation between the two contrasting statements of Proverbs 10:7 is more pronounced as “memory”(zeker) and “name” (sem) are virtually synonymous; both terms encompass “name” (Exodus 3:15; Hosea 12:6) and “remembrance” (Isaiah 26:14; Psalm 111:4).

The proverb promotes good living as the righteous will leave blessed memories. Remembrance is a point of emphasis in the wisdom literature. Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) examines:

That remembrance was important to the wisdom teachers is underlined when one reads Ecclesiastes, where his conclusion that the wise are not remembered leads him to such depressing conclusions (Ecclesiastes 1:11, 2:16, 9:5, 15)...But it is not just remembrance that is at issue. The second colon implies that the wicked are also remembered but that their memory stinks. “Name” implies more than identity, and the Hebrew term šēm could just as easily be translated “reputation.” (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 232-33)

The proverb not only affirms the favorable memory of the righteous but also allows that this remembrance can be intentionally invoked to produce blessing. Josef Scharbert (1919-1998) speculates that the proverb “probably has in mind the bārûkh-formula [i.e., “blessed be”] used by a godly person. The mention (zēker) of the righteous took place for (the purpose of) blessing (G. Johannes Botterweck [1917-1981] and Helmer Ringgren [1917-2012], Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume II, 299-300).”

The memory of the righteous has helped sustain many a struggling believer. David A. Seamands (1922-2006) illustrates:

An unknown author has said, “Memory is the power to gather roses in winter.” Obviously, this refers to the joyous aspect of good memories. Proverbs 10:7 comments on this, “The memory of the righteous is blessed.” Paul wrote to the Philippians, “I thank my God every time I remember you”(Philippians 1:3 NIV). Truly happy memories like these were Paul’s roses in winter. They brought color and warmth to the damp and desolate atmosphere of the Roman jail where Paul was prisoner when he wrote the letter. (Seamands, Redeeming the Past: Recovering from the Memories that Cause Our Pain , 31)

While the memory of the righteous persists and blesses, the name of the wicked spoils and eventually decays entirely. Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) defines:

The name of all the wicked...decays (yirqāb) like worm-eaten wood into oblivion (see Isaiah 40:20; Hosea 5:12). The few other uses of the root rāqab connote evaporation or annihilation (cf. Septuagint, “is extinguished”). The metaphor was probably chosen to associate annihilation of the name/memory of wicked people with their corrupting bodies in the grave. God blots out only the name/memory of the wicked (cf. Psalms 9:6-7, 34:16-17, 109:15). The blessed fortune of the memory of the righteous beyond death, however, must be qualified by the other realities. “Under the sun” the dead are forgotten (Ecclesiastes 9:5), and as Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony said: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” The proverb, however, looks at the end of the matter. (Waltke, The Book Of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15. (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 457-58)

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) adds:

Everyone’s corpse rots, but in the case of the evildoer, even the intangible and potentially enduring name putrefies. “Rot” may connote that his name will stink and be offensive, or that it will decompose and disappear, or both. Not only will people not use his name in blessing, they may even use it in curses and insults, as when we call a traitor a quisling...The blessing and rotting in Proverbs 10:7 have two aspects. First, they refer to the way one is remembered, for good or ill. As a saying quoted in the Egyptian tomb autobiography of Menhuhotep says, “The good character of a man is truly valuable for him more than a thousand gifts” (1.15). To support this assertion, the inscription cites the saying, “A man’s goodness is his memorial, while an evil person is forgotten.” This is in part quoting Ptahhotep, who said, “Kindness is a man’s memorial” (1.487) and “A good character will be for a memorial” (1.494)...Second, the blessing and rotting happen even before death. The prosperity that the righteous will enjoy makes them a standard of comparison in blessing others. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible), 515)

The Hebrew people act out this proverb annually during the festival of Purim, which commemorates the Jewish people’s triumph over the treacherous Haman (Esther 9:26). Bradley C. Gregory describes:

A...custom, based on a midrashic interpretation of Proverbs 10:7 (Genesis Rabbah 49), involves the adults in the congregation whispering “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” after Mordecai’s name and “The name of the wicked shall rot” after Haman’s name. This is mirrored by the practice of children using rattles or stones to drown out the mention of Haman’s name. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and Peter Enns [b. 1961], Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, 463)

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew people are repeatedly instructed to remember certain events and people (Exodus 12:25-27; Joshua 4:6-7). The Bible itself is evidence that this command was heeded and that the memory of the righteous remains a blessing.

In your experience, does this proverb hold true? What examples can you think of that illustrate this saying? What aspects of human nature make this aphorism true? What is the best way to insure that you will be remembered? Whose memory is a blessing to you? When have you drawn strength from the memory of a righteous person?

The first clause of Proverbs 10:7 has entered the Jewish liturgy as part of the burial service. While the proverb’s scope certainly relates to the hereafter, its benefits are not limited to the afterlife.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) remarks:

The NIVI and NRSV imply that this comment relates to the “memory” of people (“mention” is zēker) and thus to their reputation after their death, but there is no need to limit it to that. More likely the proverb offers a promise and a warning to people that relates to them while they are alive (as it did undeservedly to Job; cf. Job 29-30). Faithfulness makes you the kind of person who becomes a standard for blessing that people invoke, while faithlessness makes you the kind of person that people despise. The community’s ethos thus reinforces the impetus to faithfulness and the disincentive to wrongdoing. (Goldingay, Old Testament Theology - Volume Two: Israel’s Faith, 531)

As its core, Proverbs 10:7 attempts to motivate its readers to righteous living, to act as they already should be.

Do you consider yourself to be “righteous”? Do you consider how you will be remembered in the future as you take action in the present? How do you want to be remembered? What is your legacy? Does this proverb motivate you? If not, what would persuade you to live a righteous life?

“Your story is the greatest legacy that you will leave to your friends. It’s the longest-lasting legacy you will leave to your heirs.” - Steve Saint (b. 1951)

Bound to Suffer (Acts 21:10-11)

Who was the prophet who warned Paul against going to Jerusalem, and predicted his arrest? Agabus (Acts 21:10)

At the conclusion of Paul’s third “missionary Journey”, suspense builds with repeated omens regarding the apostle’s plan to return to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-23, 37-38, 21:4). This foreboding climaxes in Caesarea where the apostle stays with Philip and his four daughters who prophesy (Acts 21:7-8). Though the local prophets say nothing about Paul’s fate, the topic does not go unmentioned.

Agabus, a prophet from Jerusalem, appears from seemingly out of nowhere to address Paul (Acts 21:10-11). He delivers news that no one wants to hear, reiterating that tribulation awaits Paul in Jerusalem.

As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” (Acts 21:10-11 NASB)

What had been merely a premonition of danger in Ephesus (Acts 20:22-23, 37-38) and Tyre (Acts 21:4) becomes prophecy in Caesarea (Acts 21:10-11).

Agabus’ name (which means “locust”) is unusual; perhaps not surprisingly, the prophet is the only Biblical character who bears the name (Acts 11:28, 21:10). Despite being based out of Jerusalem, Agabus is never seen there. Though he is introduced like a new character, the prophet appears ten chapters (approximately fifteen years) earlier, predicting a famine in Antioch (Acts 11:27-30). He is presented similarly in both passages (Acts 11:27-28, 21:10) and in both instances functions as a prophet of doom (Acts 11:28, 21:11). There is no word on how Agabus spent the intervening years.

Agabus’ significance is as an established prophet that has credibility within the Church. He is also an old friend of Paul as they had both participated in famine relief years earlier (Acts 11:27-30). Informing Paul of the pending danger seems to be the sole purpose of Agabus’ trip and the prophet makes a grand gesture by traveling to Caesarea to do so.

When Agabus arrives, he takes Paul’s “belt” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “girdle” (ASV, KJV, RSV) and uses it to bind his own hands and feet (Acts 21:11). (It would have been awkward had he enlisted audience participation for this presentation.) Neither translation of the fastener is fully accurate in the modern sense of the terms. This accessory is clearly not the modern short leather belt as Agabus would have needed to be a contortionist to bind himself. (The French skeptic Alfred Loisy [1857-1940] found the action so implausible as to believe it impossible.) Thankfully the belt’s function is not to hold Paul’s garments up. Instead, the belt/girdle is a long strip of cloth (unless stated to be leather, as in Mark 1:6) wound several times around the waist to carry money and other items.

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) describes:

The prophecy is acted out, as he takes Paul’s waistband (ζώνη, zōnē). This was a long band, wrapped around the waist, in which money could be placed...The translation refers to a “belt,” which may well be a money belt. Paul may have well kept in it some of the Jerusalem collection money he was gathering. (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 638)

Agabus’ demonstration enforces his point vividly and dramatically: Paul will be bound. Loveday Alexander relays, “The theme is binding—tying up hands and feet, taking away the power of independent action—surely a personal nightmare for the much-travelled and independent Paul (Alexander, Acts: Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer, 161).”

Agabus’ action is more than a mere object lesson and the ritual is not as antiquated as it may seem at first glance. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) explains:

It isn’t just a visual aid. It’s what happens when, under the spirit who inspires prophecy, part of God’s future comes forward into the present and becomes a visible, physical, albeit symbolic reality. This, actually, is how many Christians, drawing on deeply Jewish instincts, have understood the reality of the sacraments. (Wright, Acts for Everyone: Part Two, 141)

Agabus is following in the tradition of the Old Testaments prophets who often accompanied prophecies with symbolic actions (I Kings 11:29-39; Isaiah 8:1-4, 20:2-6; Jeremiah 13:1-11, 16:1-4, 19:1-13, 27:1-7; Ezekiel 4:1-5:17; Hosea 1:2-11, 3:1-5). His words are also emblematic of his office, updating the traditional prophetic introductory formula “Thus says the Lord” to “Thus says the Holy Spirit” (Acts 21:11).

Though Agabus is obviously modeling Old Testament prophets, there are some differences. David E. Aune (b. 1939) critiques:

In form this oracle has little relationship to Old Testament prophetic speech forms, which nearly always provide a reason (Begründung) for the threat in terms of accusation. That form is clearly irrelevant here, where the fate of Paul cannot be construed as a divine threat. Yet since Old Testament predictions of future misfortunes are always viewed as punishment for misbehavior, the distance between Old Testament speech forms, in both form and content, and the oracle of Agabus appears even greater. The closest formal type of prophetic speech to the oracle of Agabus is the Greco-Roman revelatory speech form which we have labeled a predictive oracle. (Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 264)

Agabus accompanies his graphic symbolic act with a solemn interpretive word. This is the only verbatim prophecy of Agabus documented in the New Testament. He reveals little new information as the Spirit has repeatedly testified that Paul will experience heartache in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-23, 37-38, 21:4). Agabus confirms these predilections and adds two details: 1. Jews will do the binding; 2. Paul will then be given over to the Gentiles (Acts 21:11). The apostle now knows that his own people will be involved and that Jews and Gentiles will collude in his plight.

Problematically, Agabus’ prophecy is not explicitly fulfilled. While Paul is bound (Acts 21:33), it is a Roman commander, not a contingent of Jews, who ties him (Acts 21:27-33). Nor do the Jews extradite Paul to the Gentiles; the Romans had to forcefully remove the apostle from Jewish supervision as his captors were attempting to kill him (Acts 21:31). The prophecy is fulfilled inasmuch as Jewish leaders prove responsible for Paul’s Roman custody. Though Jews did not administer the binding, they provide the occasion for it and as such the prophet correctly pinpoints the party responsible for Paul’s arrest and subsequent imprisonment.

C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) acknowledges:

How can we explain this prophecy? It would not seem to be sufficient to explain it by arguing that only the details might not have been accurate, while the essence of Agabus’s prophecy was accurate. Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) points out, “This explanation does not take full enough account of the fact that these are the only details Agabus mentions–they are, in terms of content, the heart of his prophecy.” (Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary, 463)

J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) responds:

In ancient narrative precise fulfillment of prophecy or prognosticators within a narrative were not necessary. Prophecies or prognostications that foreshadowed events to come within the narrative offered readers a general sense of the direction that the narrative would take. (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 383)

The wording of the prophecy also underscores that Acts is drawing a close parallel between Paul’s destiny in Jerusalem and Jesus’ fate in the same holy city. Agabus’ speech echoes Jesus’ prediction that he would be delivered into the hands of Gentiles (Matthew 20:18-19; Mark 9:31, 10:33; Luke 18:32). Paul would suffer the same indignities as his Lord.

Agabus, a seemingly incidental character, has found his way into discussions of the very nature of prophecy. His case has been thrown into the debate between continuationists and cessationists. Continuationists affirm that the gift of prophecy has continued to the present age while cessationists do not. If inaccurate, Agabus becomes significant as he provides the only example of fallible prophecy in the New Testament.

Others have posited that Agabus’ words are proof that prophecy is not as bound as Agabus himself. Gregory A. Boyd (b. 1957) writes:

Several things are interesting about Agabus’s prophecy. First, it is clear from the response of Paul’s comrades that they did not consider this prophetic message to be a declaration of what was certainly going to happen in the future, for they immediately tried to persuade Paul not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:12). Instead they interpreted the prophecy as a warning about what would happen to Paul if he chose to go to Jerusalem...Second, it is interesting to note that even after Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, things did not transpire exactly as Agabus had prophesied...Contrary to Agabus’s prophecy, the Jews never bound Paul and handed him over to the Romans. Instead, the Romans rescued Paul from the Jews...Such a turn of events is troubling to the classical understanding of divine foreknowledge and the understanding of divine prophecy that usually accompanies it...If the future is partly composed of possibilities and probabilities, however, then this prophecy is a perfect assessment of what would generally happen based on the Lord’s perfect knowledge of the present disposition of the Jews in Jerusalem. (Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, 168-69)

Despite the minor inconsistencies, Acts clearly intends for Agabus’ prophecy to be read as genuine and accurate. The text does not criticize Agabus, rather it consistently presents him as a prophet (Acts 11:27-28, 21:10). Nor does it note any discrepancy between prophecy and fulfillment. Perhaps most tellingly, Paul’s own words in recounting his demise echo Agabus’ (Acts 28:17). For Acts, Agabus is proven correct.

The ominous implication of Agabus’ binding is obvious and the added word is likely unnecessary: While Agabus does not go so far as to mention death, trouble awaits Paul in Jerusalem. Paul who had set out to bind believers is to be a bound believer himself (Acts 9:2).

Why does Agabus reenforce his prophecy with both words and signs? Would one or the other not have been sufficient? Why does Agabus bind himself and not Paul? Have you ever been bound? Is there a place to accompany words with acting/skits in modern worship? Does prophecy need be filled exactly? Is Agabus’ prophecy correct?

All who hear Agabus’ prophecy take heed, including Paul (Acts 21:12-14). They do, however, interpret it differently. Using human deduction, Paul’s friends understand the prophecy as a warning and plead that he alter his course (Acts 21:12). Conversely, Paul views Agabus’ words as confirmation of his calling (Acts 21:13). To Paul, his hands are tied: He is bound to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:13-14).

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) clarifies:

The Spirit had not given different guidance; Paul and his friends interpreted the guidance differently. It is what the friends and Paul added to the guidance that made the difference. Paul added the resoluteness of previous clarity; his friends added the reserve of tender affection for the apostle. (Ogilvie, Acts (Mastering the New Testament), 297)

While his prophecy is certainly not an encouraging word, Agabus only foretells what will happen; he does not endorse a particular course of action. Unlike a previous revelation, Agabus’ prophecy does not forbid Paul to go to Jerusalem (Acts 16:7-8), it merely prepares him for the trials that loom there. As Paul is the person whom the prophecy concerns, his opinion matters most. And the determined apostle will not be dissuaded from traveling to Jerusalem (Acts 21:13).

The prophecy prepares his friends for the blow and gives Paul the opportunity to declare his willingness to suffer, and even die, for the faith (Acts 21:13). Paul realizes that finding suffering along life’s path does not necessarily indicate that one has made a wrong turn.

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) comments:

The paragraph shows that for Luke what will happen in Jerusalem is a part of the divine plan. That Paul and his friends know ahead of time what to expect allows them the opportunity to submit to the divine will, as Jesus did. This is the Pauline Gethsemane. It shows that suffering may be part of the divine will for his servants, even though they be Spirit-empowered (Luke 3:21-22, 4:16-19; Acts 9:17). It shows, moreover, the Spirit-filled person’s submission to the divine will, whatever that may be. If it is to return to Ephesus (Acts 18:21), that is fine; if it is to be imprisoned and die in Jerusalem, that must be done (Acts 21:13). (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles,185)

The Christian is often called to suffer and, in some cases die, for her faith. William H. Willimon (b. 1946) interprets:

Even as Jesus was warned (Luke 9:44, 18:32), so is Paul. The servants of God may be empowered and gifted with the Spirit, but this in no way exempts them from suffering for the cause of truth (Acts 9:17; Luke 3:21-22, 4:16-19). In Luke’s gospel Jesus accepts suffering and death as part of the way he must walk (Luke 9-23). Paul’s journey towards Jerusalem parallels Jesus’ passion, for Jesus is the “leader” or “pioneer” who goes before the disciple in every way, including the way of pain (Acts 5:31). Whatever prayer “in Jesus’ name” may mean, whatever it means to be “in the Spirit,” it does not mean exemption from pain. (Willimon, Acts (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching) 160)

Have you ever wished that you were wrong about something? Is Agabus’ intention to reroute Paul? If not to dissuade Paul, what is the point of this prophecy? Why is it so important that Paul sees his trials coming? Is Paul correct in continuing on course to Jerusalem or should he have diverted his path? Have you ever suffered for your faith? Are you willing?

“We do not choose suffering simply because we are told to, but because the One who tells us to describes it as the path to everlasting joy.” - John Piper (b. 1946), Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, Revised Edition, p. 287

What a Cluster! (Numbers 13:23)

What did the Israelite spies bring back from Canaan, from the brook of Eshcol? A cluster of grapes [pomegranates and figs] (Numbers 13)

Before the Israelites invade Canaan, God instructs Moses to enlist a representative from each of Israel’s twelve tribes to explore the land (Numbers 13:1-2). After securing these delegates (Numbers 13:3-16), Moses gives his scouts instructions (Numbers 13:17-20). After surveying the typical tactical objectives (topography, military, fortification, etc.), the last of Moses’ instructions is to obtain a sample of the region’s fruit (Numbers 13:20).

Do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land.” (It was the season for the first ripe grapes.) (Numbers 13:20b NASB)

The seasonal time stamp included indicates that the reconnaissance most likely occurs in July, but potentially as late as early September.

The advance team does as they are told and secures an excellent specimen.

Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23 NASB)

The spies retrieve grapes, pomegranates and figs; all fruits indigenous to Canaan but not Egypt where the Israelites are leaving and certainly not the Sinai wilderness where they are living. No one could deny the fertility of the Promised Land. As promised, Canaan is a land characterized as flowing with “milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24).

The most noteworthy souvenir is a cluster of grapes so substantial that two men and a pole are needed to secure it. Specimens as large as twelve pounds (five kilograms) have been found in the area.

Martin Noth (1902-1968) explains:

In order to carry it undamaged, they had to lay it on a pole carried by two bearers (most likely a kind of wooden bier such as is envisaged in Numbers 4:10, 12 for the carrying of the sacred lamp and other sacred vessels) and which they brought back along with a vine-branch and a few pomegranates and figs taken as samples from their reconnoitring. (Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 106)

David L. Stubbs (b. 1964) adds:

The image of the scouts bringing back a cluster of grapes so large that it hung on a pole supported by two men is a wonderful symbol of the fruitfulness of the promised land. Grapes, pomegranates, and figs may have been mentioned simply as part of the historical difference between the crops of Canaan and Egypt (see Numbers 11:5 for the fruit that people missed). Or these luscious and celebratory fruits of Canaan might be a subtle indication that God’s purposes are even better than what the people imagined in their unfaithfulness. The cluster of grapes and other fruit become a symbol of the faithfulness of God to his covenant promises. The land is indeed a good land; and the faithful God has brought them to a good place of not simply manna and water, but of grapes, wine, celebration, and feasting. (Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 128)

This massive vine leaves an indelible picture of the abundance of Canaan. In fact, even today, centuries later the image supplies the logo for the Israel Ministry of Tourism (pictured).

The valley of Eshcol, though geographically unidentifiable, is actually named for this produce. Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) dissects:

The word nahal (here valley) refers to the wadi or seasonal torrent-valley in the dry land. This valley was named for the cluster (’eškōl) of grapes found there. Since Numbers 13:24 makes clear that the spies themselves call the valley Eschcol, it is not surprising that the actual site is unknown. Some scholars have assumed that Eshcol was in the Hebron area, perhaps around Ramet el-Amleh. The biblical text probably means that the spies left Hebron and went on their way, coming to Eschcol at some point north of the town, but how far north is unknown. (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 238)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) speculates:

The name of the valley, Eshkol, means “cluster (of grapes)” and was also the name of the brother of Mamre the Amorite, an associate of Abraham and the one for whom the town on the northwestern outskirts of Hebron was named (Genesis 14:13). Hence the valley may have been named originally according to the family name of Eshkol, and then developed as a prime region for viticulture. On the other hand, the Valley of Eshkol may have been so named by the scouts who explored the region somewhere north of Hebron according to the magnificent cluster of grapes growing there. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 221)

The word used to describe the pole on which the cluster is carried is also used sacramentally. Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) notes:

They brought back a selection of the fruits of the land, grapes, pomegranates and figs, which they carried back on a pole: though pole is the traditional rendering of Hebrew môt, it may mean something more elaborate like the frames for carrying the tabernacle in Numbers 4:10, 12. (Wenham, Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 118)

Roy Gane (b. 1955) adds:

When the chieftains return to the community, they stage a much anticipated “show and tell.” “...Most impressive is a gargantuan “cluster” (’eškol) of grapes that two scouts carry between them on a pole (Numbers 13:23), the way Kohathite Levites carry sacred objects belonging to the sanctuary (Numbers 4:6, 8, 11, 14, 7:9). (Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (The NIV Application Commentary), 599)

The procession of the grapes is intended to have a dramatic, religious ambience.

This fruit sampler platter also functions as a foretaste of the meals awaiting the Israelites in the Promised Land. These grapes serve as tangible irrefutable evidence of the land’s goodness (Numbers 13:27) and the implication is that there is more where that came from.

Billy Graham (b. 1918) illustrates:

One of New York’s leading grocery stores exhibited a basket of choice and beautiful grapes in the window. A notice appeared above the basket announcing: ‘A whole carload like this sample basket is expected in a few days.’ The grapes were a ‘pledge’ of what was to come. The firstfruits are but a handful compared with the whole harvest.” (Graham, The Holy Spirit: Activating God’s Power in Your Life, 86)

Seeing is believing and God graciously allows the Israelites a glimpse of their inheritance. Richard N. Boyce (b. 1955) relates:

Knowing us better than we know ourselves, God is aware that words alone are difficult to trust. While some few can believe without seeing, most would prefer to see and even taste (cf. John 20:24-29). No one who has read the New Testament, where Christ is the Vine who offers up the fruit of the kingdom through his death on the cross can help but see sacramental language bubbling over as the spies return from the Wadi “Eschol”...with a single cluster borne on a pole between two people (Number 13:23). God provides not only forewords and foresights, but foretastes as well. (Boyce, Leviticus and Numbers (Westminster Bible Companion), 157)

Like the ancient Israelites roaming the wilderness, modern Christians do not dwell in their eternal Promised Land. But like our spiritual ancestors, we are blessed with the occasional “foretaste of glory divine” in hopes that it will produce “blessed assurance”.

Since the text has already established that God is with the Israelites in their mission and that the land flows with milk and honey, why is it necessary to scout the Promised Land? What produce/food is your region known for? What is the most oversized produce you have ever witnessed? What might be the equivalent symbol of national wealth today? When have you experienced a foretaste of things to come? Why do the spies retrieve a single massive cluster as opposed to many small samples? Was this expedition an effort to build morale?

Like the grapes, the Promised Land is ripe for the picking. Unfortunately, the mammoth cluster is not enough to convince the nascent nation. The cluster creates a cluster. Amazingly, the colossal specimen does not even prove a conversation piece. After acknowledging the land’s goodness (Numbers 13:27), the conversation quickly shifts with a giant “but...”.

Grapes are not the only thing giant in the area. Like Texas, everything is bigger in Canaan. The majority opinion is negative as ten of the twelve spies focus not on the size of the grapes but on the size of the farmers who grew them. Only Caleb (Numbers 13:30) and Joshua (Numbers 14:6-9) maintain faith that God will deliver the land.

Instead of focusing on the promise, the Israelites see only the obstacles, the risk not the reward. The people become so downtrodden that there is no record of the grapes ever being eaten. They disregard the fact that they have safely scouted the land for forty days without incident. There is good news and bad news and the nation dwells on the bad.

In suggesting that they abandon their mission in Canaan, the Israelites are actually considering giving up on God. Not coincidentally, when the Promised Land is finally secured, Joshua and Caleb are the only ones from the period alive to see it (Numbers 14:30, 38, 26:65, 32:12).

Which two spies do you think carried the produce? Would these have been more likely to focus on it than the enemy? What would you have been consumed by, the obstacles or the objectives? Do you focus more on God’s blessings or your problems?

“The majority see the obstacles; the few see the objectives; history records the successes of the latter, while oblivion is the reward of the former.” - Alfred Armand Montapert (1906-1997), Distilled Wisdom, p. 173

When the Faith is Shipwrecked (I Timothy 1)

Who made shipwreck of their faith? Hymenaeus and Alexander (I Timothy 1:19, 20)

First Timothy is a letter from Paul to Timothy relaying advice concerning Timothy’s ministry in Ephesus (I Timothy 1:1-3), hence it is classified as a Pastoral Epistle. The author devotes the majority of the epistle’s first chapter to encouraging his protégé to remain faithful (I Timothy 1:3-11, 18-20). After a brief tangent (I Timothy 1:12-17), Paul reiterates his argument by closing the chapter with an obscure reference to Hymenaeus and Alexander that functions as a cautionary tale (I Timothy 1:18-20).

This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. (I Timothy 1:18-20 NASB)

Hymenaeus and Alexander exemplify the danger of relenting in the faith. Jouette M. Bassler (b. 1942) explains:

The author’s purpose in mentioning them here is to provide concrete counterexamples to Timothy’s faithful discipleship, a common technique in hellenistic moral exhortation and one used extensively in II Timothy (see II Timothy 1:15-18, 2:15-18, 3:1-12). Identifying Hymenaeus and Alexander as “certain persons” (see also II Timothy 1:3) who have “suffered shipwreck in the faith” (i.e., whose piety or fidelity to saving doctrine has been destroyed)...returns the argument to its opening emphasis on opposition to sound teaching. (Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 46)

Paul’s naming of his opponents is rare; even earlier in First Timothy the apostle names sins, not sinners (I Timothy 1:3, 6, 7). In the Pastoral Epistles, four are named who failed to persevere: Alexander, Hymenaeus, Philetus and Demas (I Timothy 1:18-20; II Timothy 2:14-19; 4:10). In naming names, Paul kills two birds with one stone as he fortifies his charge while correcting his opposition’s errors.

Nothing is known definitively about Hymenaeus and Alexander. For them to have been expelled, they were clearly once in the church. The fact that they are named and have influence suggests that they were prominent leaders who have defected and become false teachers.

Hymenaus is a very rare name. It also appears in II Timothy (II Timothy 2:17) and some believe that the Hermogenes that appears in the second century apocryphal work Acts of Paul and Thecla is a conflation of Hymenaeus.

Jerome D. Quinn (1927-1988) and William C. Wacker (b. 1951) note:

The name Hymenaeus recurs in II Timothy 2:17 along with a person called Philetus as examples of “those who have deviated in the truth” about the resurrection. The name is not documented otherwise in the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, or the Septuagint. The Greeks and Romans invoked the god of marriage under that name (or Hymen), but they rarely named their children after him...Jewish people did not use the name at all. (Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 145)

Alexander, not surprisingly, is a far more common name (Mark 15:21; Acts 4:6, 19:33; I Timothy 1:20; II Timothy 4:14), twice connected to Ephesus in the New Testament. As such Alexander has been linked to a Jewish man who tried to speak at a riot in Ephesus years earlier (Acts 19:33) and a trouble making coppersmith who later caused “much harm” to the apostle (II Timothy 4:14 NASB).

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) comments:

The name “Alexander” was more common and often taken by Jews. Four occurrences of the name in the New Testament have something to do with Paul (Acts 19:33[2x]; II Timothy 4:14) and are all, even if coincidentally, linked to Ephesus. On balance, though some maintain that the additional reference to his trade in II Timothy 4:14 intends to distinguish between two people bearing the same name, it seems just as plausible that the additional information supplied at a later time was meant to identify the same opponent who, because of Paul’s disciplinary action...moved to a new location and posed a new level of threat to Timothy. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament),160)

Though many attempts have been made to connect the Alexanders, it cannot be done with any certainty.

Whoever Hymenaeus and Alexander are, Paul does not mince words, diagnosing that they have “suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith” (I Timothy 1:19 NASB). In the ancient world, shipwreck was used proverbially, like the modern use of “train wreck”. Even so, this is not an expression that Paul would have uttered lightly (Acts 27:14; II Corinthians 11:25).

S.M. Baugh (b. 1954) expounds:

Hymenaeus and Alexander...are said to have “shipwrecked their faith.” This image is powerful anywhere, but particularly at Ephesus, which was one of the most important seaports and shipping distribution points in the eastern Mediterranean. The shipwreck image was also vivid for Paul, of course, since “three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea” (II Corinthians 11:25). With the small size of sailing craft in those days...lack of compass and other navigational aids, and the unpredictable storms at certain times of the year in the Mediterranean...shipwrecks and drowning were all too common events for travelers by sea. Hence, shipwreck became a fairly common metaphor for tragedy or downfall in life. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 50-51)

Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) adds:

Ordinarily ships having wrecked cannot be recovered. This was a radical image of destruction of that which was once sound. When the reliable ship, faith with good conscience, becomes corrupted by novel teachings it founders on the shoals, as did Hymenaeus and Alexander, about whom Timothy appears well informed already. These individuals, “not content with their own destruction,” wrote Epiphanius (320-403), “desire to involve others in death with them” (Letters, From Epiphanius to Jerome XCI, NPNF 2 VI, 185). (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 123-24)

As Oden alludes, Hymenaeus and Alexander’s plight affects others. Literally what is shipwrecked is not “their faith” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT, RSV) but the faith (ASV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV) (I Timothy 1:19).

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) clarifies:

The Greek is not totally clear as to whether the reference is to the personal faith of Hymenaeus and Alexander or “the faith” in general, thinking of the havoc that they have wreaked not only in their own lives, but also in those of others. The text is rightly translated “the faith,” but the nuance probably includes the thought of damage done both to their faith and by them to others and to the witness to the faith when they thrust away the Christian teaching, since they were leaders. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 209)

The specific infraction that Hymenaeus and Alexander committed is not stated though it is clearly grievous enough to have upset Paul. It can be deduced that their error began with the rejection of “good conscience” (I Timothy 1:19). George W. Knight III (b. 1931) specifies, “The relative pronoun,ἥν, must have ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, and only it, as its antecedent. It is rejection of “good conscience,” not rejection of faith that causes shipwreck regarding faith (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 109).”

What began as a rejection of good conscience evolved into bad speech (I Timothy 1:20). Warren W. Wiersbe (b.1929) sees a pattern, generalizing:

Professed Christians who “make shipwreck” of their faith do so by sinning against their consciences. Bad doctrine usually starts with bad conduct, and usually with secret sin. Hymenaeus and Alexander deliberately rejected their good consciences in order to defend their ungodly lives. Paul did not tell us exactly what they did, except that their sin involved “blaspheming” in some way. (Wiersbe, Be Faithful (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon): It's Always Too Soon to Quit!, 28)

Based upon another reference to Alexander in the Pastoral Epistles (II Timothy 2:17), many have concluded that their error is an over realized eschatology, one of the early forms of Gnosticism. Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) and Ardel B. Caneday (b. 1950) examine:

It is in the midst of extended exhortations to Timothy to be faithful to his charge as a minister of the gospel (II Timothy 2:1-16) that Paul associates with Hymenaeus and Philetus, “whose teaching will spread like gangrene” (II Timothy 2:17). In II Timothy 2:17 the apostle says these two men “have wandered from the truth” because they teach that the resurrection has already occurred. Their heresy is similar to one that Paul counters in I Corinthians 15, a form of overrealized eschatology. Belief that the resurrection has already happened creates a mutated version of Christianity, a version Paul does not regard to be Christianity as all. It seems that these two men believed and taught that when Christ arose resurrection was complete. They collapsed the not-yet resurrection of believers into the already resurrection of Christ, so that they believed there is no future resurrection on the last day. This heretical belief influenced and shaped how they behaved with regard to the appetites of the body. Whereas this heresy in Corinth evidently prompted some to indulge in the bodily appetites (I Corinthians 6:13), in Ephesus it evidently prompted ascetic prohibition of marriage and use of certain foods (I Timothy 4:1-5). Their heresy strikes at the very core of Christian faith... (I Corinthians 15:12-14). (Schreiner and Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance, 228-229)

Thanks to letters like the Pastoral Epistles, the modern Christian is unlikely to make this theological error. Even so, the cautionary tale holds today: rejecting good conscience can result in calamity and blasphemy. Even Christian leaders can be guilty of these sins.

Why does Paul name names in this epistle? Should he have publicly called out Hymenaeus and Alexander? What do you think caused Hymenaeus and Alexander to stumble? Which typically comes first, bad thought or action? How would you behave if you stopped listening to “good conscience”? Have you ever known anyone who “suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith”? Does Paul write the backsliders off? Have you ever given up on someone? How should the Christian respond to those who have suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith?

Paul flexes his apostolic muscles in his response to Hymenaeus and Alexander: “I have handed [them] over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme (I Timothy 1:20 NASB).” Though rare, this seems to be an established disciplinary recourse known in the Pauline churches as there is a precedent in Corinth (I Corinthians 5:5). There, however, Paul instructs the congregation to hand the offender over (I Corinthians 5:5). The use of the first person verb here suggests his direct role in the action. And that action is difficult to read.

One’s interpretation of “handed over to Satan” is crucial as it dictates not only how the church handles the lapsed but also reflects how God responds to sinners.

Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) analyzes:

It is not clear what it means to hand someone over to Satan. It appears to be a much stronger action than the one prescribed in II Thessalonians 3:14-15, not to associate with someone “in order that he may feel ashamed.” The language is close to that in I Corinthians 5:5, where an immoral man is to be “handed over [paradidomi, as here in I Timothy] to Satan.” In I Timothy the purpose is correction; in I Corinthians it was to save the person’s spirit by destroying the “flesh,” which could, as in the NIV, mean destroying the sinful nature or, perhaps more likely, afflicting the incestuous man physically...These two men must learn not to blaspheme. Since they are already in the church, their blaspheming is more serious than Paul’s (I Timothy 1:13), who acted in ignorance. (Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (The NIV Application Commentary), 79-80),

The esoteric clause is problematic and as such has been interpreted in several ways. Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) surveys:

To “hand over to Satan” has at least two possible interpretations. First, it may refer to some illness or physical disability Satan is allowed to inflict on evildoers (see Job 2:6). J.D.N. Kelly (1909-1997) insists that we “must infer that illness, paralysis, or some other physical disability was in the Apostle’s mind.” Second, it may be used as a semitechnical phrase that regards life in the church as the sphere of the Spirit and life outside the church as the sphere of Satan. Paul may have been saying that he had removed the offenders from the fellowship of the church and placed them in Satan’s realm, where they would experience his malice. This seems the more likely interpretation. (Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (The New American Commentary), 81)

The latter interpretation is most common. “Handed over to Satan” has been read as synonymous with excommunication. In an age where there was one church, excommunication was especially tragic. The underlying supposition is that Satan rules this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11; II Corinthians 4:4) and outside the confines of the Church, there is no safeguard against attack. When one is “turned over to Satan”, she is more susceptible to “the snare of the devil” (I Timothy 3:7; II Timothy 2:26).

The ultimate goal of expulsion is a return to inclusion. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) surmises:

As in I Corinthians 5, this seems to mean that such people are to be put out of the Christian assembly, forbidden to meet with, and eat with, the rest of the church. Paul saw the fellowship of the church as the place above all where the power of God was active to heal, guide, lead and direct individual Christians. To forbid people access to it was therefore tantamount to sending them away into outer darkness, to a place where the only spiritual influence they might come under would be that of ‘the accuser, the satan. The aim, of course is that after a very short time in such a condition they would realize their mistake and come back with sorrow and penitence, ready to learn wisdom. That is what probably happened in the other case, as II Corinthians 2 seems to indicate. (Wright, Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters : 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, 16-17)

The fact that Paul aims to “teach” them a lesson is further cause for hope, as “taught” implies living through the experience. In this reading, being handed over to Satan is an exercise in “tough love”.

Rob Bell (b. 1970) theorizes:

What is clear is that Paul has great confidence that this handing over will be for good, as inconceivable as that appears at first. His confidence is that these two will be taught something. They will learn. They will grow. They will become better...“Satan,” according to Paul, is actually used by God for God’s transforming purposes...There is something redemptive and renewing that will occur when Hymenaeus and Alexander are “handed over.” (Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, 89)

The agency of Satan supports the author’s original premise. Deborah Krause (b. 1962) connects:

Through their example he is able to reaffirm the theological claim made earlier in the doxological formula in I Timothy 1:17...God indeed is immortal and invisible, and due all glory for all eternity, because within the letter writer’s theological system even Satan can be marshalled for the purposes of teaching right doctrine. (Krause, 1 Timothy (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 44)

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) concludes that the goal is indeed redemption:

Despite all the trouble Hymenaeus and Alexander have caused, the purpose of Paul’s delivering them to Satan is not merely punishment but remedial, looking forward to the day when they might learn not to blaspheme. παιδεύειν, “to instruct,” means not only to educate but more significantly “to practice discipline,” “to discipline with punishment” (BAGD, 603-4). Timothy and the Ephesian church must discipline to the extent of punishment, but they must do it with the goal of redemption. (Tertullian thought that both men were eternally lost [De pudicitia 13:99f.].) The word is used of divine discipline (I Corinthians 11:32 [where it is remedial]; II Corinthians 6:9; cf. Hebrews 12:6, 10; Revelation 3:19 [where it is also remedial]) as well as human discipline (Luke 23:16, 22)...This difficult balance of firm yet not vindictive discipline is admirably represented by the only other occurrence of the word in the Pastoral Epistles. Paul tells Timothy that he must discipline his opponents with gentleness, hoping that God will grant that they repent, come to know the truth, and escape the snare of the devil (II Timothy 2:25-26). Throughout the Pastoral Epistles we see that Paul desires not only that the opponents be silenced but that they turn from their evil ways (cf. Titus 1:3). (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 68)

Though their fate is unknown, the goal of their having been handed over to Satan is for Hymenaeus and Alexander to reassess their apostasy, see the error of their ways and return to fellowship. If God could save Paul, the self professed worst of all sinners (I Timothy 1:15), he can certainly salvage these two from their shipwreck.

Even in the early days of the church, there were dissenters. When Hymenaeuses and Alexanders invade your church, know that the Church survived others before them. And there is always hope for them as well.

Does God punish or discipline? When have you experienced tough love? What other alternatives did Paul have in dealing with Hymenaeus and Alexander? How would your life be different were you to be expelled from your church? Do you know anyone who has been driven out of a church? What are the guidelines for being removed from your church? In comparison to the New Testament era, do we discipline church members enough today?

“The man who has experienced shipwreck shudders even at a calm sea.” - Ovid (43 BCE-17 CE)