JAMES 3:13-18

 First we must first establish whether these particular verses should be treated as a discrete section of the epistle. That can be done in three alternative ways:

1. At several points in the epistle, questions containing the phrase “among you” seem to open new sections. Thus, we have in this case the following similar phrases:

        “Who is wise...among you?” (3:13)

        “What causes wars...among you?” (4:1)

2. These verses constitute a sub-section of a larger chunk of Scripture:

                                Figure 1: The Spiritual Life: Part 1 (James 3:13-5:6)

        A. The Righteous (3:13-4:10)

                1. Peace (3:13-18)

                        2. Humility (4:1-10)

                                B. Judging (4:11-12)

        A'. The Unrighteous (4:13-5:6)

                        2. Arrogance (4:13-17)

                1. Discord (5:1-6)

3. Finally, there is a clear three-part symmetry found within these six verses:

                                                Figure 2: Structure of James 3:13-18

            a. wisdom from above (v. 13)

                        b. wisdom from below (vv. 14-16)

            a'. wisdom from above (vv.17-18)

Helping to define this symmetry are the facts that (a) the word “wisdom” appears once in each of these three sub-sections while (b) “good” is found once each in a and a'.

With that out of the way, we can get to the meat of the passage as explained by several Bible scholars:

James 3:13

“James now turns to the teachers, for in late Judaism they (Rabbis) were identified with the wise...Wisdom is analogous to faith (cf. 2:18) and must be shown by works. The temptation of teachers is to be purely theoretical (cf. Jn. 7:49). James wants the knowledge to issue in good conduct and not to be roughly hurled at simple souls. They must not be always 'putting people right' nor engaging in controversy with 'rivals' in the work of teaching.” (Ward)

James 3:14

Thistleton asks, “In what sense does selfish ambition lead one to be 'false to the truth' (Jas. 3:14)? James may be referring to a false estimate of one's own capabilities. But it is more likely that he is warning his readers that selfish ambition and arrogance lead one to put considerations about their own status even above those which concern the truth. Often lies stem from a concern to defend, or assert the claims of one's own status in the eyes of others.”

Blue defines some of the terms used here: “'Wise' (sophos; cf. sophias in 1:5) describes one with moral insight and skill in the practical issues of life. 'Understanding' (epistemon) refers to intellectual perception and scientific acumen.”

Carson adds, “The opposite of the meekness of wisdom is 'bitter envy and selfish ambition (14).' Cf. Gal. 5:19-23. If these things characterize us, though we may boast of our wisdom, our whole life is a denial of the truth revealed in Jesus (cf. Eph. 4:21).”

James 3:15

Kistemaker points out that the “New International Version correctly puts the word wisdom in quotation marks to indicate that this wisdom is not genuine...Without faith and prayer a person can never obtain true wisdom. His words spoken out of envy and selfish ambition show a make-believe wisdom that originates with man, not with God.”

“This wisdom...is the negation of the true wisdom, and to mark the contrast James uses the strongest word possible, the almost unique 'devilish.' His vehemence, in our view, is proof that he is condemning not mere possibilities or probabilities but actualities, even perhaps in the Church of Jerusalem itself.” (Adamson)

James 3:16

Johnson says that “antisocial behavior reveals the character of a wisdom rooted in envy as 'earthbound, unspiritual, demonic.' In 1:8 James called the double-minded person 'unstable' (akatastatos) and in 3:8 called the tongue a 'restless (akatasta statos) evil.'”

James 3:17

“In James 3:17 the wisdom that comes from above is said to consist of, among other things, 'mercy and good fruits.' The works that are to accompany faith thus find their ultimate origin in God (see also Jas 4:6: 'he gives more grace'). Thus for both James and Paul the demand for Christian works is predicated upon one's experience of grace.” (Eastman)

Hendricksen comments on Matthew's order of beatitudes (merciful, pure in heart, and peace-makers) when he says that “it is possible that peace-making is mentioned next [after purity of heart] according to the rule stated by James, namely, that 'the wisdom which is from above, is first pure, then peaceable' (3:17).”

James 3:18

“James is insistent that religion must show itself in works. In this he is wholly true to his Master's words 'By their fruits ye shall know them' (Mt. vii. 20)...Calvin...points out that those who exercise the wisdom that is from above...'moderate their zeal with the condiment of peace, for those who wish to be physicians to heal vices ought not to be executioners'!” (Tasker)

THE BIBLE SUB-DIVIDED: PART 2

In the first part of this short series I only got as far as comparing the composition of the Bible with its two Testaments to the existence of a modern city into an older and newer part of town. But this analogy can certainly be extended further.

Genres

The next smaller unit we run across in the Bible is found as one groups together the individual books into similar types. Thus, we have the following general divisions by genre: historical books (Genesis-Nehemiah and The Gospels and Acts), Prophecy and Apocalyptic Literature (Isaiah-Malachi and Revelation), and the Letters (Romans-Jude). Of course, these are only broad generalities since one will, for example, certainly run into prophetic material in both the historical books and the epistles.

Or one could divide all the books of the Bible into those written in prose and those which are better classified as poetry. But the problem with that mode of genre differentiation is that almost all the books are a mixture of the two to some extent or another, and scholars on occasion disagree even on individual verses as to whether they could best be called prose, poetry, or “elevated prose.”

The same sort of a mixture of types is found as one examines the individual smaller neighborhoods found within both the older or newer parts of town. There may be, as in my present town, golf course and retirement communities which have their own restrictive rules regarding the acceptable outer appearance of the individual houses (up to and including the maximum height of the grass in one's lawn, whether or not you are able to park your car on the street, and how long children are allowed to stay in your house) and may require maintenance fees to support the upkeep of the common areas. And in the historic areas of town, there are a number of laws limiting the amount of house modernization one can do.

Applying this analogy to the individual genres in the Bible we see that there are rules of proper interpretation regarding each type of literature. (The classic book How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth is a very valuable resource in this regard.) This consideration runs counter to both the more liberal believer and the fundamentalists. Thus, one will find most liberals who deny that events such as Christ's multiplication of the loaves and fishes or the resurrection of Jesus were ever meant to be taken literally since the authors were only talking symbolically. But at the other extreme, I have personally talked to those who feel that if you don't take every single statement in the Bible as a literal, propositional truth (including the parables), you have no right calling yourself a Christian.

Individual Books

Finally we work our way down to the level of a single book of the Bible, each of which has its own individual character. Fortunately, I now live in a community where practically anything goes in terms of the outward appearance of our properties. So although I may not personally agree with the colors the neighbors in my community chose to paint their houses or be slightly annoyed when someone leaves their unwanted furniture out near the road for anyone who chooses to pick it up. But on the other hand, no one in by neighborhood has ever criticized me for the way I often let my grass get little higher than I should. And of course what I do to my house's interior is strictly up to me.

In the same manner, in interpreting the books of the Bible, one must take each one individually on its own merits, including the particular theological slant of the author, the style he chooses to employ, and the sometimes unique way he has of using his favorite vocabulary to express his ideas. And also you need to always keep in mind the particular historical background against which each author is writing and who his intended audience is.

Chapters

Now that we have limited our analogy down to the confines of a single house, the next logical divisions are found in the rooms within that house. Within a house, one may have individual rooms which are quite serviceable in themselves but do not at all work in their present location. For example, there are some house plans I have seen in which anyone in the guest bedroom has to walk through the master bedroom to get to the bathroom. Then there was another house we looked at before moving to our present location. It had obviously been expanded with time to the point where one needed to transverse two series of stairs and walk through a huge game trophy room in order to get from one end of the house to the other.

So we had to be careful to make sure that the room divisions made sense before we actually bought a house, and that the natural flow from one part of the house to the next was one with which we could live.

Similarly, when one burrows down to the next smaller convenient unit in the Bible into which the books are divided, we come to the chapters. These are certainly chunks of material that generally lend themselves well to serving as the subjects for individual sermons or Sunday school lessons. But some people go even further and take these divisions as sacrosanct, feeling that they must be considered part of the original text. The fact is that the first attempt to divide up the biblical text into chapters did not actually happen until 1227 AD when Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton came up with our present chapter divisions. Although the Archbishop did an admirable job, to call these divisions inspired is a drastic overstatement. As a matter of actual fact, our present divisions are sometimes quite misleading, including both those occasions when a given chapter should more properly have been a little shorter and those in which they should have been extended to include more verses.

Getting back to our house analogy, when we brought our present house we felt quite free to both shorten some wall openings between rooms to create a more open access between them and to create a brand new room by subdividing one room which was too large for our needs. In the same manner, one should take the present chapter divisions as only rough guidelines as to where the author wished to begin a new thought or present a different event.

Verses

The same situation which applies to the chapters in the Bible also must be taken into account in regard to our present verse divisions, which were by no means found in any of the early manuscripts of the Bible. In fact, the Old Testament was divided into verses for the first time by a Jewish rabbi by the name of Nathan in A.D. 1448. And Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanus, was the first to divide the New Testament into standard numbered verses, in 1555. Stephanus essentially used Nathan’s verse divisions for the Old Testament. Since that time, beginning with the Geneva Bible, the verse divisions employed by Stephanus have been accepted into nearly all the Bible versions.

The problem comes in when we try to elevate those individual verse designations as the only sure guide to what the authors intended in the first place. As an example I have shared before, I visited a Sunday school class once where the teacher would absolutely not allow anyone to refer to a previous or subsequent verse for clarification when discussing an individual verse. By “atomizing” the text in that manner, it was treated as a series of unrelated verses which had to each stand on their own. This is an especially ridiculous way in which to approach the Bible since, for example, some of Paul's individual introductory sentences in Greek encompass ten or more verses in our English versions.

Again, even at this smallest level, there is applicability to the spatial analogy I have been developing. To explain, the verses in a chapter can be considered as the furniture and decorations within each individual room. And just as one wouldn't bunch all the furniture in one corner, leaving the rest of the room bare, so there should be both an aesthetically pleasing and practical arrangement of furnishings in a room.

Applying that principle to the verses in the Bible, we now come to the subject that is near and dear to my heart, the literary symmetry found within every level of the Bible. Since it has been the subject of many of my past posts, I will not belabor the issue except to point out that same sort of recurring pattern appears when the walls of a room are decorated by matching elements. For example, pairs of sconces or pictures which are of similar subjects, size, style, and/or color are quite often hung on the wall on either side of a central feature such as a fireplace or TV. This is closely analogous to the chiastic arrangement of words, events, or paragraphs within a biblical chapter and taking the form ABA', in which A and A' match in vocabulary or theme and B is the center point of emphasis.

Of course, there are other equally aesthetically pleasing ways both to decorate a room and to construct an orderly chapter-size segment of Scripture, but I think you will get the general idea from the example above.

THE BI8LE SUBDIVIDED: PART 1

 I chose the word “subdivide” on purpose since one way of viewing the various borders in the Bible separating one section from another is perhaps by using an extended analogy with the way physical space is divided up. As a typical example of divided space I will start with the medium-size town in which I now live.

Two Testaments

If my town is compared to the Bible, then the first thing to note is it can be seen to have an older community located on one side of the interstate highway and actually called “Old Town” in our particular case. But more recent explosive growth has expanded greatly the geographical boundaries of the town in a ring circling “Old Town” and dwarfing it in combined area and population. A quite similar situation occurs in the Bible wherein the Old Testament, at least for Christians, has been supplemented and overshadowed to a great extent by the addition of the New Testament to the Canon of Scripture.

And in both cases, this expansion is accompanied not only by a quantitative change but by a qualitative one as well. To explain what I mean, the older part of town contained all of its administrative offices, courts, DMV, library, firehouses, etc. So when expansion took place further and further away from this center, the newer occupied areas still had to rely on these vital offices for a number of needed facilities even if it became harder and harder to reach them. Instead the newer developments predominantly consisted of housing developments supplemented with a few large grocery stores, fast food venues, and medical offices. In other words, all the modern amenities most people might require on a fairly frequent basis.

In the same manner, the composition of the books in the Old Testament such as those devoted to laws, history, and prophecy tends to be quite different from that found in the New Testament. It is true that both testaments contain a large amount of historical material, But the NT has much less emphasis on prophecy and very little on laws per se. Instead we find a large number of communications addressed to particular fledgling congregations attempting to give them practical ad hoc advice regarding some specific problems they are experiencing as well as counsel to new church leaders concerning how to deal with various church problems they have been having or will be likely to encounter in the course of their pastoral duties.

Returning to the city: Although most of its inhabitants accept all of the present boundaries of the city as valid, their heart may really belong to only one half of it. So we get those living in the older portion of town moaning and groaning about how much better it was in the good old years before the rampant growth took place while those in the suburbs tend to feel that the old-timers are resisting the inevitable future. And there is the same divide among those who accept both the Old and New Testament as inspired by God. On the one hand, there are the majority of church groups who call themselves “New Testament Christians,” who may only reluctantly agree that the teachings and events in the Old Testament were a necessary preparation for the eventual appearance of Jesus Christ who fulfilled those teachings in every way. And I have met extreme examples of congregations in which the study of Old Testament books is unofficially forbidden on Sunday morning.

But on the other hand, there are the Bible churches which actually teach that the New Testament era in which we now live is a “mere parenthesis” in the overall plan God has for the Jewish people. I know from experience that some of those in that general group even start their own sub-groups within a congregation in which the participants have their own services during church time patterned after the Jewish rituals. And I visited one small congregation in which the men who were leaders felt that they needed to grow their beards long in order to obey OT practices. This particular sub-group has its roots going all the way back to the early church where they were known as the Judaizers and roundly condemned by Paul.

The Canon of Scripture

The inevitable growth taking place in an area like ours which still has available land for development adjacent to the city boundaries gives rise to two opposite trends. One the one hand are those politicians who see any sort of growth good since it adds to their power base. They are constantly proposing that the city annex new property whether or not we have the infrastructure and resources to support it. But on the other hand, some of the larger communities on the outskirts of the city boundaries feel that they are being inadequately served by the existing government centered far away from where they are living. Thus, they are always threatening to secede unless their demands are met, and are catered to since they represent a very powerful and unified voting bloc.

Those same sorts of opposing trends can be seen in church history. The official canon of God-inspired writings developed by a sort of consensus among individual Christian communities over the first centuries AD. Eventually the New Testament canon was agreed upon. But there was some controversy regarding the number of acceptable OT books. Since most of the early church leaders at the time were fluent in Greek but knew little or no Hebrew or Aramaic, they tended to rely on the early Greek translation known as the Septuagint for guidance. However, that collection contained a number of additional writings which we know as the Apocrypha.

The feeling among the majority of leaders in the church when the canon was slowly being formulated was that these particular books must have been part and parcel of the official Jewish canon (which they actually weren't) and therefore must be accepted (annexed) into the Christian canon. It wasn't until much later during the the time of the Reformation that Christian scholars came to recognize that there was no hard evidence that any but maybe one of two of the writings in the Apocrypha were actually written in Hebrew to begin with. Therefore, especially as the Reformation Movement proceeded to grow in strength, the new Protestant groups began to treat the Apocryphal books with growing suspicion and either discarded (de-annexed) them from the Canon or grouped them in a separate portion of the printed Bibles with an explanation that these writings contained instructive material but should not be used to establish any official church doctrines. Such a note was necessary since the Medieval church teachings regarding purgatory and the practice of selling indulgences had their “Scriptural” basis only in the Apocrypha. Of course, with time even the Roman Catholic Church relented somewhat and relegated some of the Apocryphal books to the status of “deuterocanonical.”

Unfortunately, that didn't stop the process of annexing and de-annexing biblical material. Thus, we have the Mormons who have basically replaced the whole Bible with their own “inspired” writings; the Christian Scientists who have re-interpreting the Bible out of all semblance to its original meaning; and the Jehovah Witnesses with their faulty Bible translation designed to get rid of the whole concept of the Trinity. And that doesn't include the vast number of tiny cult offshoots which continue to pop up all the time.

EZEKIEL 11 AND 24 -- THE CITY AND THE POT

I have run into a number of Christians over the years who brag that their method of looking at the Bible is superior to any other because they take it all as the literal truth. However, once you try them out on a specific example, they are likely to readily back-pedal and redefine “literal” as meaning the most natural reading, which could by the way could be either literal or figurative.

So what do we do about the statements in these chapters regarding the people in Jerusalem who were experiencing a series of incursions into Israel by the Babylonians who were taking away much of the populace as captives? Since they are referred to three times in chapter 11 alone as pieces of meat in a pot (see Figure 1), that is obviously not to be taken as literal in any real sense of the word unless the Babylonians happened to be cannibals who intended to make stew meat out of them.

                                      Figure 1: Repeated Vocabulary in Ezekiel 11:1-15

    A. I saw Pelatiah son of Benaiah (1)

        B. mortal (2)

            C. This city is the pot, and we are the meat (3)

                D. prophesy (2x) (4a)

        B'. mortal (4b)

            C'. The slain are the meat, and this city is the pot (7)

                    E. I will judge you at the border of Israel (10a)

                        F. You shall know I am the LORD (10b)

                    E'. I will judge you at the border of Israel (10c)

            C''. This city shall not be your the pot and you not the meat (11)

                        F'. You shall know I am the LORD (12)

                D'. prophesying (13a)

    A'. Pelatiah son of Benaiah died (13b)

        B''. mortal (15)

When running into metaphors or similes in the Bible, one need first to consider the context in which these the figurative statements take place. I have already alluded to that above. But the next step is a bit trickier since one subsequently needs to decide what sort of literal and/or historical reality might lie behind each figurative image. And here I not unfrequently find myself jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Ezekiel 11:3

This first time this image appears is a prime example. To explain, I happen to enjoy cooking. Thus, when reading about a pot of meat, probably simmering on the open fire with some vegetables and savory spices, the interpretation I naturally came up with for this image was as follows: Those living in Jerusalem had been witnessing raids on the surrounding small towns and countryside in which the inhabitants were being readily gobbled up by the Babylonians as a sort of salad or appetizer. However, the main course they were really looking forward to was Jerusalem itself with its riches and influential inhabitants. Therefore the statement by the Jerusalemites in Ezekiel 11:3 indicated that they were shaking in their boots waiting for the inevitable attack on their city to begin. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any reputable Bible scholars who saw things the way I did.

Hulst says, “Two different lines of interpretation are possible in this verse. The DNV and RSV translations explain the text as meaning that the people who give wicked counsel feel themselves safe. No one needs to be concerned about the possibility of the city's destruction so that houses will need to be built. That time is not near. The other possible sense is to take the text as an interrogative sentence...The idea, then, is that those who remain in Jerusalem after the first deportation of 597 B.C., reject the prophetic warning of impeding judgment. They feel that they are so safe that they can unmolested proceed to build their houses.”

Note that neither of Hulst's possibilities is remotely similar to the one I had come up with. And it is not just Hulst who takes this general line of interpretation. To quote one other example from the scholarly literature on the subject, Cook states, “Having a false confidence in Zion's ironclad invulnerability (the pot), they assure the populace of the city's security.”

Ezekiel 11:7

The plot (if not the pot) thickens in this next occurrence of the same image. Whereas it was the leaders in the Jerusalem community who utilized it in verse 3, in this case it is God himself who speaks, and he does so in order to contradict those leaders. We now find out that from God's viewpoint the chosen “meat” are not at all the present inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem, but again there is some ambiguity as to who they really are.

Thus, Bruce admits that “it is uncertain whether the bodies should be understood as the victims of these leaders' ruthlessness or as those doomed to be slain by the sword at the capture of Jerusalem.”

Ezekiel 11:11 

This verse basically repeats the thought of v. 7. 

Ezekiel 24:1-14

Just about the time we think Ezekiel has exhausted all the meaning he can get out of the pot and meat analogy, it pops up again at the end of Ezekiel 24. Its position there is not exactly a random one. It turns out that the major divisions of the long book of Ezekiel are almost universally recognized as consisting of chapters 1-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-24, 25-32, 33-37, 38-39, and 40-48 (See the posts titled “Ezekiel: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and “How is the Book of Ezekiel Organized?” for more information.) Note that the two places the image occurs serve to conclude two adjacent divisions of the book.

In Chapter 24 the imagery becomes a little more detailed to the point where it can rightly be called an allegory (v. 3) rather than a simple metaphor. All the steps to prepare a stew are given in the first verses.

As to the meaning of this passage, Beasley-Murray suggests the following scenario: “Perhaps Ezekiel was actually preparing a meal in a cauldron when the word of God came to him, declaring it to be symbolic of the judgment of Jerusalem. The use of the figure is wholly opposite to that in 11:3.” At last we come to the meaning of the image which I had mistakenly felt applied to that earlier passage!

Greenberg summarizes the opening of the passage with the following words: “Here the cook is imaginary and the cooking process is particularized in order to call vividly to mind the care that went into it [i.e. preparation of the stew] so as to heighten the shock of the sequel.”

Then Wakely walks us through the meaning of that sequel: “In Ezek 11:3 the complacent, undiscerning and arrogant survivors of the 597 BC deportation boasted that they were safely hidden in Jerusalem...However in Ezek 24:10, the place of protection has become the place of danger. Yahweh commands that logs be piled under the cauldron (Jerusalem) and the fire kindled...After the flesh (of the city's inhabitants) has been well boiled, the broth is to be emptied out and the bones burned up. Some have sought to give an interpretation to each detail in the allegory...but others...have argued that Ezekiel was not interested in such individual details, but only in the ultimate result after the cauldron had been subjected to the intense heat. The stain of spiritual impurity and social corruption with which Jerusalem was so radically contaminated could be removed only by a blazing inferno of destruction.”

Problems of exact interpretation continue to plague those trying to understand the pot and meat imagery to any detail. Thus, although the general thrust of this passage is fairly clear, there are still controversies which continue to be debated in the literature concerning, for example, whether verses 3-5 originally constituted a popular work song (see the discussion in Block's massive commentary on Ezekiel).

ARMAGEDDON REVISITED (REVELATION 16:16)

Several years back I wrote a post titled “Armageddon (Revelation 16:16)” in which I began with the following statement:

“The concepts of Armageddon and the Battle of Armageddon have entered into the consciousness of the general public, even among those who have never read the Bible...The word itself only appears in one verse, Revelation 16:16. And Mounce calls it 'one of the more cryptic and difficult problems of Revelation', which is certainly saying a lot. Metzger calls this a 'mystic place-name' and demonstrates the problem Bible scholars have had with the word itself for over 1,000 years by the fact that the name is actually spelled thirteen different ways in the manuscripts. And the common spelling I have used in the title above only appears in some rather late Byzantine documents...One of the alternative spellings of the word in question is Har-Mageddon, possibly meaning Mountain of Megiddo. On the one hand, Sheriffs says, 'The fact that the tell of Megiddo was about 70 feet high in John's day, and was in the vicinity of Carmel Range, justifies the use of Heb. har, used loosely in the Old Testament hill and hill country.' However, Mounce and others are not convinced. He states flatly that 'there is no Mt. Megiddo. None of the solutions offered is especially persuasive.'”

This is a controversy which seems never to die. For example, recent archaeological excavations in that general area have been reported in the Winter 2025 issue of BAR magazine which reveal some interesting new information to add to the debate.

For one thing, Mounce, quoted above, may be unduly harsh in saying that no mountain existed at Megiddo since a 70-foot high elevation at the time of Revelation's writing hardly could be considered a mountain. But we have to put that height in perspective against the flat plain surrounding it. Let me offer two possible parallels I personally observed during my life.

When I was looking for a job after graduation, I was given an interview trip by one firm in central Michigan. It was hard to imagine a flatter landscape than the one the city was occupying. But my host showed me the literal “high spot” in town, a small elevation in one area where my host said the richest and most prominent families in town had built their houses “so that they could look down on the rest of the city.” It was nicknamed “Mt. X” (I won't reveal the actual name of the town since that would immediately identify the name of the company, the only industry located there).

Well, I did get a job, but it certainly wasn't in X City. And on one of my business trips with that firm, I had one occasion to visit some of its operations in West Texas. In terms of flat land, it had Michigan beat by a mile. My hosts there were driving me around the countryside when they told me they were about to take me to the highest elevation for over 100 miles in any direction. It turned out to be a simple overpass in the road, but we stopped in the middle of it to “admire” the scenery.

With those two examples in mind, I am in wholehearted agreement with Sheriffs that a 70-foot mound surrounded by plains could certainly qualify as a mountain in that geographical setting.

Getting back to the recent article in BAR, the authors report their findings after excavating an ancient site named Legio located quite near the remains of Megiddo. They uncovered a 40-acre Roman Legionary Base quartering as many as 5,000 soldiers posted there after the abortive First Jewish Revolt of 66-73 AD.

The feelings of these authors is that it was the existence of this post during the writing of the Book of Revelation which influenced the imagery of the coming Battle of Armageddon. The authors conclude that “the practical military realities of the region – including the presence of the Sixth Legion at Legio and the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem – mirror the narrative progression of Revelation. The battle at Armageddon can be interpreted as the necessary first step in overcoming imperial forces en route to the restoration of Jerusalem, aligning with the text's climax, in the descent of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2). In this way, Revelation reimagines historical conflicts within a Christian framework, offering hope for divine vindication in the face of Roman oppression.”

Whether or not one agrees with the above statement, there are some other interesting archaeological tidbits uncovered just outside the site of this Roman army instillation in what appears to have been a Christian prayer hall. On its floor are three mosaic inscriptions “one explicitly referencing Jesus Christ and indicating that Christian worship was held there perhaps 75 years before Emperor Constantine embraced that faith. The most notable of these...reads: 'The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.' This unique inscription refers to Jesus Christ as God, and is one of the earliest inscriptions of its kind in the Holy Land or anywhere else. A second inscription, dedicated by a Roman centurion, further highlights the intersection of imperial authority and early Christian practice. The third inscription records the names of four women, emphasizing their importance to the local Christian community.”

These inscriptions help to confirm details concerning the make-up of the Christian church in the early days recorded in both Acts and Paul's letters in regard to the actual presence of Roman soldiers in some congregations as well as the prominent involvement of women.

THEOLOGY IN COLOSSIANS 1:15-29

Paul's epistles are generally organized as follows: opening greeting, blessing, thanksgiving, body (doctrinal issues followed by applications), closing greetings, and benediction. According to this scheme, the doctrinal content of the Letter to the Colossians is located in the second half of Chapter 1.

Those who are more accustomed to the practices in the more liturgical churches than I am will be familiar with the various forms of catechisms which are taught to the youth prior to their confirmation. By contrast, in the majority of the non-liturgical churches I have attended, such detailed material is generally found in the more or less detailed statements of faith to which one must subscribe before joining the congregation. These generally take the form of personal declarations such as “I believe in...”

But one will probably look in vain throughout the New Testament writings for such such vital information concentrated in one convenient place. Instead it must be read into the text, and for the Epistles such material is generally concentrated in the verses following the section containing the opening thanksgivings. So I have attempted below to paraphrase the statements in Colossians 15-29 into the form of a sort of catechism.

I believe that:

    Even though we cannot see God, his image can be seen in the person of Jesus (Col. 1:15a). Guthrie comments: “Man was created in the image of God, which relates to his moral nature. Even more essentially is Christ the image of God...It is because man bore God's image that it was possible for God to become man. In this way what otherwise would be invisible becomes visible to man.”

    Christ was not a created being but existed eternally (Col. 1:15b). For more on that subject, see my post titled “Was Christ created? (Colossians 1:15).”

    All things in heaven and earth were created through and for Jesus Christ (Col. 1:16).

    Christ existed before the creation, which is continuing to function only through Him. (Col. 1:17)

    Christ was placed as the head of the church. (Col. 1:18a) Ralph Martin says of 17-18a that “it goes on to assert that Christ acts as a unifying principle which holds the universe together. As such he is its head.”

    Christ showed us the way by being the prime example of resurrection from the dead. (Col. 1:18b) “Already described and labeled as Eikon and Prototokos over all creation (1:15-16), the exalted Son is now depicted in redemptive categories. In 1:15-17 there is a primordial or essential primacy, while in 1:18-20 the primacy is the achievement of the resurrection.”

    The fullness of God is present in Jesus Christ. (Col. 1:19) The fullness of God [is] “a technical term for the plentitude of deity.., not merely the divine attributes but the divine nature.” (Metzger)

    Christ's death on the cross makes it possible for us along with all creation to be reconciled to Him. (Col. 1:20) Raymond Brown says, “By divine election God in all fullness dwells in Christ. That is why through him all things can be reconciled to God.”

Summarizing verses 15-20, Geisler says:` “No comparable listing of so many characteristics of Christ and His deity are found in any other Scripture passage. Christ is the supreme Sovereign of the universe!”

We are all sinners and can only be considered blameless before God though appropriating Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. (Col. 1:21-22) “The many allusions to the former lives of the readers suggest that most were gentile converts. They had once been utterly out of harmony with God, enmeshed in idolatry and slavery to sin, but God had reconciled them to himself.” (O'Brien)

It is necessary to persist in our faith if we wish to be saved. (Col. 1:23) This is perhaps the most controversial theological point in this whole passage. My own personal view on the subject is best expressed by N.T. Wright, who says, “This promise, like most, has a condition. The hope holds good, if Christians hold on to it...Paul knows that true Christian faith is the beginning of a life which given by God, will be brought to completion by him (Phil. 1:6). He also knows that genuine faith is seen in patient and steadfast day-to-day Christian living, while counterfeit faith, so hard in its early stages to distinguish from the real thing, withers and dies. From God's point of view, genuine faith is assured of continuing to the end. From the human point of view, Christians discover whether their faith is of the genuine sort only by patient perseverance, encouraged (cf. Rom. 5:1-5) by the Christian hope.”

Preachers and teachers have been provided by God to make it possible to continually grow in our faith and knowledge of what God requires of us. (Col. 1:24-29) Ashby clarifies the meaning of one key word in this section: “A mystery is not something which must be kept secret, but rather a concealed truth which God is pleased to unveil when the time is ripe.” If you wish more on that particular subject, Beale and Gladd have written a helpful 400-page book titled “Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery.”

One could expand this list by comparing it with (a) the doctrinal sections found in the other Epistles, (b) the teachings of Christ while on earth, (c) the information concerning heavenly matters and the Last Days contained in the Book of Revelation, and (d) timeless teachings and examples found throughout the Old Testament.

Complications

Of course, each denomination and/or congregation has compiled its own list of such statements after deciding which ones are of primary concern and which are secondary or tertiary beliefs. And these quite often disagree with one another.

Then to complicate the situation, it is not at all unusual to find church leaders who are supposed to hold to the official teachings of that particular group, but in practice no longer do so. In some cases, they do not really believe in all of them and in other cases they actually add to the official list their own particular opinions on a variety of subjects.

Finally, since the Bible contains a variety of material written over a long time period and in a variety of genres, there is the question of which of the biblical books takes precedence over the others, with some groups interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old Testament and others feeling we must do the exact opposite.

Finally, since the Bible contains a variety of material written over a long time period and in a variety of genres, there is the question of which of the biblical books takes precedence over the others, with some groups interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old Testament and others feeling we must do the exact opposite.

JACOB THE DRAMA QUEEN

If one ever needed proof that those who love to over-dramatize their plight in life are not at all limited to the female sex, just consider the Old Testament patriarch Jacob (also known as Israel). He is well known as a deceiver, but this is another one of his unfortunate traits. Such negative talk regarding a biblical “hero” may sound heretical, but we all need to be reminded periodically that there is only one true hero in the Bible and that is the triune Deity. So here are some of the places in Genesis where Jacob exhibits such behavior as well as possible sources behind his actions.

Genesis 27:46

Right off the bat we get a glimpse into which parent he may have picked up his trait from, namely his doting mother Rebekeh who tells her husband Isaac, “I am weary of my life because of the Hittite women. If Jacob marries one of the Hittite women such as these, one of the women of the land, what good will my life be to me?”

Genesis 29:25

And speaking of Jacob's marriage, we all remember that Laban pulls a fast one on Jacob by marrying him off to Leah instead of his real love Rachel. When Jacob finds out he has been tricked, he replies to Laban, “What is this you have done to me?” In this particular case, we should not be too judgmental toward Jacob, because his reaction is totally justified. I know that I would definitely have done the same thing if it had happened to me.

Genesis 30:1

Of course, Jacob does get to marry Rachel at the same time, but that only brings him into contact with another drama queen – Rachel herself, who complains to him, “Give me children, or I shall die!”

Genesis 34:30

We skip forward in time a bit and see that Jacob and his growing family are now living in Hivite territory when his daughter Dinah strays a little too far from home and is raped by one of their prominent young men. Her brothers take revenge by wiping out many of them, only to have their father Jacob complain bitterly to them: “You have brought trouble on me!” Note that he seems not to be in the least interested in his daughter's situation, but only on the possible negative effect his sons' actions may have on himself.

Genesis 37:35

Then we come to the familiar story of Joseph's treatment at the hands of his brothers. When they break the news to him of the supposed death of Joseph, he refuses to be comforted by his family, saying “No, I shall to down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” In other words, he will never get over his loss as long as he lives.

Genesis 42:36

To briefly rehearse the events surrounding this next event, there is a famine in the land of Israel and Jacob sends ten of his sons to Egypt to buy grain. Joseph by this time is in charge of such matters and has changed enough in appearance that his brothers do not recognize him at all. He tests their character by demanding that they bring to him their youngest brother Benjamin, keeping Simeon as hostage until they return. When they inform Jacob of these unfortunate events, he immediately thinks the worst and replies dramatically, “I am the one you have bereaved of children: Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more, and now you would take Benjamin. All this has happened to me!” That it is own fate rather than that of his family which is paramount in his mind is quite clear from the words in bold.

Genesis 42:38

Jacob relents and agrees to send Benjamin back with them. After all, he doesn't want to starve to death. But he warns the sons, “If harm should come to him.., you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol,” and repeats these words in 44:29, 31.

Genesis 43:6

Note also Jacob's accusation toward his sons in this verse: “Why did you treat me so badly as to tell the man that you had another brother?” Every action is interpreted by Jacob by how it affects him personally.

Genesis 45:28

Jacob continues to talk about his imminent death when told that Joseph is still alive even though his death would not happen for many more years.

Genesis 46:30

He repeats this idea after he has seen Joseph a short time later “I can die now, having seen for myself that you are still alive.”

Genesis 47:9

Finally, Jacob reviews all the woes in his “short” life for the benefit of Pharaoh: “The years of my earthly sojourn are one hundred thirty; few and hard have been the years of my life. They do not compare with the years of the life of my ancestors during their long sojourn.”

It is not hard to find parallels to people like Jacob who exhibit one or more of his traits. Here are a few random examples I have observed during my own “few and hard” years:

Starting out with a fictional example, but one no doubt taken from real life observations, there is the unforgettable character of Sanford (played by the comedian Redd Foxx) in the TV series Sanford and Son. Whenever the slightest thing happens in his life to upset him, he acts like he is having a heart attack and cries out to his long-departed wife in heaven, “I am coming, dear!”

And there was a friend of our family who, starting in her 50's, began moaning and groaning to all who would listen, “I don't understand why the Lord doesn't take me now. How much longer am I going to have to live?” But as far as any of us could see, she had nothing in her life about which to complain.

Similarly, a woman in our family would complain to total strangers how hard her life was and how she was forced to keep working even at her age (in her late 50's). The fact was that (1) she could have retired at any time to a pleasant group setting nearby but she didn't trust the owners to keep her there once she had paid the small opening fee, and (2) she had no one but herself to blame for her situation because her three failed marriages were all her own fault.

Finally, there is the example of past president Richard Nixon. When he lost his bid for California governor he blamed it all on the hostile press with the words: “You won't have me to kick around anymore.” Then years later after he had talked for a few minutes with the first astronauts to land on the moon, he bragged about what an historic occasion is was when the president of the United States could talk to someone on the moon. Thus, in effect he placed himself at the center of the event rather than all those who had made the voyage possible.

EPHESIANS 1:3-27 RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

In approaching a new book of the Bible for study on your own, probably the first thing you should do is make sure you are well founded concerning the basics of that book. Any general Bible introduction will, thus, provide you with information about the author, the intended audience, the circumstances surrounding the writing, and the main purpose for which it was written. But what some readers do not realize is how important it is to see each of these books as a literary creation which is divided into separate sections, and often there is a plan behind these individual divisions and the ways in which they relate to one another. The problem comes in when that original plan is so obscure that even scholars have trouble agreeing on what it is.

Usual Format

As one example of that last consideration, take the first chapter of Paul's Letter to the Ephesians. William Barclay, in his general introduction to Paul's epistles found at the start of his commentary to Romans, explains that Paul generally began his letters with a short greeting (Eph. 1:1 in this case), followed by a prayer (1:2) and a thanksgiving to God (1:3). Then Paul could begin the main contents of his letter (at Ephesians 1:4) and conclude with various greetings and a benediction (6:21-32). But even Paul felt free to depart from that general plan on occasion.

Division by Subject

This is another way of trying to discern the intended divisions in the text. In English we do this by starting a new paragraph or skipping a line. But the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts rarely had such division points indicated. Thus, the scholars who came up with our various translations had to make judgment calls which sometimes did not agree with one another wholly. For example,

NIV and RSV indicate major divisions in its translation after verses 2 and 14, as well as a minor division after v. 10. Also seeing a break after v. 10 is one of the anonymous contributors to The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, who states: “The plan of salvation reflects the purpose of the will of God the Father, who has sent the Son to carry it out (Eph. 1:3-10).”

NEB also sees these three break points in the text but makes no distinction between the one after v. 10 and the others.

NRSV agrees with the major divisions after 2 and 14 but does not indicate a break after v. 10. Also recognizing v. 15 as starting a new section is Marcus Barth.

Hoehner's commentary on Ephesians also recognizes a two-fold division, with vv. 1-14 as “an extended praise directed to God and vv. 15-23 as “a commendation to the readers for their faith and love and a petition for wisdom and revelation.” (1:15-23). But note that he starts this unit with v. 1 instead of at v. 4 (Barclay) or v. 3 (RSV and NRSV). Also Hoehner's last description could be taken as an indication that there is a further division into a commendation / thanks in verses 15-16 followed by the actual prayer to God in 17-23. Maclean recognizes this same sub-division.

However, here again there is disagreement since Simpson treats vv. 15-20a as a prayer and labels 20b-23 as “Christ's Exaltation and Its Concomitant Issues for the Church.” Then there is the opinion of Moritz who calls verses 3-14 a eulogy or extensive praise section while verses 15-23 are treated as an intercessory prayer.

The intended ending of the unit beginning at either 1:1 or 1:3 is felt to be at Ephesians 3:21 by both Harpur and Foulkes, with Harpur seeing a major break after 1:19 while Foulkes places it after 1:14.

JB has a break after v. 14 but additionally indicates that vv. 3-14 (titled “God's Plan of Salvation”) is written in a form of poetry while vv. 15-23 (“The Triumph and Supremacy of Christ”) are in prose.

Division by Genre

The last example above brings up another criterion sometimes used to indicate that a new sub-section is beginning. But it is by no means foolproof since we can see that the Anchor Bible translation, divisions below, disagree with the Jerusalem Bible as to which verses are in poetry and which are in prose:

    prose (v. 3), poetry (vv. 3-10),

    prose (vv. 11-13), poetry (v. 14),

    prose (vv. 15-20a), poetry (20b-23)

Organization by Key Words and Phrases

    1. in the heavenly places (3)

        2. he chose us (4a)

            3. holy (4b)

                4. love (4c)

                    5. he has destined us according to his will & purpose (5)

                        6. to his praise and glory (6)

                            7. redemption (7) 

                                    8. wisdom (8)

                    5'. his will & purpose (9)

                                        A. fullness (10a)

                                            B. all things (10b, 11b)

                    5''. destined according to his will & purpose (11)

                        6'. to his praise and glory (12)

                                                C. believing (13) 

             3'. holy (13)

                                                    D. inheritance (14a)

                            7'. redemption (14b)

                        6''. to his praise and glory (14c)

                                                C'. faith (15a)

                4'. love (15b)

                                8'. wisdom (17)

        2'. he has called you (18a)

                                                    D'. inheritance (18b)

                                                C''. faith (19)

    1'. in the heavenly places (20)

                                        B'. all things (22-2x)

                                    A'. fullness (23a)

                                        B''. all things (23b-2x)

                                    A''. filling (23c)

As you can see from the above diagram, this chapter is rather densely packed with repetition of vocabulary which takes the rather unusual (but not unheard of) biblical form of two interlocking chiasms (i.e. mirror-image arrangements). Taking each separately, one can see that the numbered items reach their center point around verse 10 while the lettered items in bold reach their peak at around v. 15. Thus, it is no accident that these two change-points in the chapter are also identified by the above cited scholars using completely different lines of reasoning.

One minor textual point regarding the presence of the word “love” in v. 15 is in order at this point. Early Greek manuscripts of Ephesians differ somewhat as to whether it was in the original writing. Two prominent textual scholars disagree on this point, with Metzger feeling that it was original and Comfort stating that it was added later. Looking at the word distributions above, one can see that there is a good parallel between the presence of “love” in verses 4 and 15. However, on the other hand, if this word pair is removed from the structure, the overall organization in Figure 1 does not suffer in the least.

Grammatical Considerations

Running counter to all of the above approaches is the comment of Comfort, who notes that Ephesians 2:1-3 “grammatically speaking, should be connected with the end of chapter 1, otherwise they are just dangling...There is no break between the two chapters in the earliest MS [i.e., manuscript]. The idea is that Christ fills the church, his body, and (specifically) fills those who were once dead in their trespasses and sins. No other translation makes this connection.”

GENESIS 41

The narration in this chapter can be shown visually below to consist of two halves (see Figure 1). But they are unified as a whole by two similar phrases, “the land of Egypt” (14x) or simply “the land” (5x), which appear in both divisions.

                                              Figure 1: Two-Part Structure of Genesis 41

    A. Pharaoh dreams (1-8)

        B. Joseph interpreted two prisoners' dreams (9-13)

    A'. Pharaoh tells dreams to Joseph (14-24)

        B'. Joseph interprets Pharaoh's two dreams (25-32)

    ---------------------

            C. Joseph outlines plan to Pharaoh (33-36)

                D. Joseph promoted and married to Asenath (37-45)

            C'. Joseph implements plan (46-49)

                D'. Joseph's and Asenath have two children (50-52)

            C''. Joseph's plan is successful (53-57)

A and A' end similarly: “there was no one who could interpret” (8) // “there was no one who could explain” (24)

B' takes the form:

        1. “The two dreams are one and the same” (25a)

                2. “God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do” (25b)

                        3. Seven good years (26)

                                4. Seven bad years (27)

                2'. “God has shown to Pharaoh what he is about to do.” (28)

                        3'. Seven good years (29)

                                4'. Seven bad years (30-31)

        1'. “The doubling means that God has fixed the thing” (32)

And the root word “dream” appears exactly 14 (=2x7) times in this first half of Genesis 41 just as the number seven, symbolic of perfection or completion, is also prominent in Genesis 41:1-32.

Goldingay has enumerated the numerous echoes of Genesis 41 found in Daniel 2 concerning Daniel's

 interpretation of the king's dream about the statue with feet of clay. In fact, one might almost state that

 Daniel 2 is a commentary on the Joseph story.

Verse 1 “Two years of days” emphasizes the point that a full two years elapsed before he was

 remembered. If the butler had acted immediately, Joseph could have credited his own foresight instead 

of God's providence.

Verse 14 This custom is confirmed by Egyptian records. Shaving was a necessary ritual before 

appearing before Pharaoh. It probably had to do with removal of all body lice. Also, the removal of all

 body hair was a rite undergone by all newly ordained Egyptian priests.

Verse 16 Here we find the first of several times Joseph gives credit to God, perhaps indicating his 

growth of faith in prison. The generic Elohim is used rather than Yahweh, for Pharaoh's benefit. It could

 be a hint for us to utilize words and concepts easily understandable to a secular audience rather than

 putting them off or confusing them with unduly “churchy” wording and phrases.

Verse 32 This is similar to Jesus' use of “verily, verily” to indicate that a statement is really true.

Verse 33 Is he hesitant to put himself forward as the man to do the job, or is it a strong hint that he is 

applying for the job? One could take this to teach that we shouldn't be bashful about seizing 

opportunities. Perhaps we see here a combination of divine and human initiative.

Verse 36 God holds the fate of all nations in his hand, not just those who serve him. And other Bible 

passages teach that a whole nation may be blessed due to the actions of one pious person.

Verse 38-39 This is the first instance of the Holy Spirit dwelling in a person. Pharaoh recognizes the

 power of God at work, and his country is spared (contrast this with the encounters between the later 

Pharaoh and Moses).

Notice that this is the fourth time Joseph is the second in command: under his father as a favorite son, 

with Potiphar, and in jail. This is a foreshadowing of the fact that his tribe will be second after that of 

Judah.

Verse 42 This is parallel to Joseph's coat of many colors designating his status as the favorite.

Verses 42-43 One wonders whether Joseph was a man like Paul who could be content whether in

 prison or in comfort.

Verse 45 Joseph's name means “revealer of secret things.” OR “God speaks and lives.” OR “food man 

of the land.” Potiphar is a different person from the first Potiphar since this one is a priest. What do you

 think about a monotheist fitting in to a polytheistic culture? How much do you think he discussed

 theology with his boss?

Verse 51 The first name may mean “release from all obligation of debt” or “made me forget my 

problems by recompensing me.” If the latter, it brings up the question as to why Joseph never informed 

his father that he was alive.

Verse 55 Was Joseph doing his boss' job for him? It certainly wouldn't be the first or last example of 

that happening. I have personally been through that experience more than once in my career.

 

ZIKLAG

 

    

                          I Samuel 30   (collage, 1992)

 This city figures in to events taking place over a long period of time, from the reign of Saul to the return from the Babylonian Exile. But there still is some doubt regarding the exact location of that town.

“Ziklag appears in Jos. xv. 31 as being near the Edomite boundary, in the south of Judah. It was apportioned to the Simeonites, but later fell into Philistine hands. David, when a Philistine vassal, ruled it and was later able to retain and incorporate it in his own realm. It remained in the hands of Judah in both pre-exilic and post-exilic times. Tentative locations are Zuhailika and Tell al-Khuwailifa, the latter more favored by modern scholars.” (D.F. Payne) One such scholar is Pfeiffer, who locates the site as being “in the Negeb about twenty-five miles southeast of Gaza.”

 One the other hand, Tsumura (as well as McCarter) says that “the site may be the modern Tell esh-Sheriah, about 20 miles east-southeast of Gaza.” He personally doubts it is Tell el-Khuwalifa “since that tell seems to be located within the territory of Judah rather than that of the Philistines.”

And just to add to the list of possibilities, Myers identifies Ziklag with En-rimmon.

But in an article in the Winter 2025 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, coauthors Kyle H. Keimer, Gil Davis, Saar Ganor, and Yosef Garfinkel suggest another strong possibility:

“Over the years, scholars have identified Ziklag with more than a dozen sites in southern Israel; most can be disqualified on geographical, archaeological, or chronological grounds. Although some good possibilities remain, Khirbet al-Rai offers the strongest evidence for being biblical Ziklag. Geographically, it fits the description provided by the biblical text (Joshua 15:31; 19:5; 1 Samuel 27:6; 30:1, 14, 26; 1 Chronicles 4:30; 12:1, 20). Chronologically, it was occupied during the periods in which Ziklag was mentioned by the biblical authors. Archaeologically, it has a destruction layer dated to the late 11^th or early 10^th century, which corresponds nicely with the period of time in which the Bible says the Amelekites 'burned' Ziklag as retribution for David's earlier raids against them (1 Samuel 27:8-9; 30:1). Perhaps most important, there is a distinct change in material culture in the late 11^th and early 10^th centuries at Khirbed al-Rai, from a mixed Canaanite / Philistine culture to one that is distinctly Judahite. Indeed, its continued Judahite identity throughout the rest of the Iron Age seems to be remembered in 1 Samuel 27:6, which says that Ziklag belonged to the kings of Judah 'until this day.,' likely referring to the contemporary seventh-century setting in which the account was written.”

Another noted scholar commenting on the time of writing of that phrase says it “could refer, as the earliest possibility, to the time of Rehoboam of the late tenth century B.C.” (Tsumura)

Joshua 15:31; 19:5

This city first appears in the biblical chronicles in the book of Joshua. Whereas Joshua 13:8-17:18 is the first phase of land allotment, chapters 18-19 reflect the second phase.

I Samuel 27:6

The Philistine ruler rewards David for his supposed loyalty by giving him the city of Ziklag as his own. McCarter explains, “The granting of landed properties to favored servants was a common part of the feudal economy of the city-states of the ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age.”

As to the effect of this on David, Baldwin says: “From every point of view it was good that David should move away from Achish's capital, but especially because he needed freedom to operate his own independent policy without being observed too closely...From David's point of view Ziklag had the advantage of being well away from Saul's territory and isolated from the Philistine pentapolis...Achish stood to gain from leaving David's army to protect his southern territory; he may also have hoped to have won the support of Judah against Saul, which might have enabled him to take the whole land, as he very nearly did in the battle of Mount Gilbaeh (1 Sa. 31:7).”

“When David went raiding from Ziklag, 'he did not leave a man or a woman alive' (1 Sam 27:11), and when the Amalekites raided Ziklag, they captured all the women and children related to David's troop.” (Evans)

David's actions may seem rather bloodthirsty, but remember that he did not dare to leave behind any Amalekites alive who could possibly inform David's overlords, the Philistines, about his double-dealing. For the fact was that David fully utilized his position at Ziklag, not mainly to serve the Philistines but instead to serve as “a kind of unofficial policeman or protector of Judah.” (McCarter)

As to the underlying importance of this chapter, McCarter says that “the entire Ziklag pericope may be said to demonstrate a historical bias for a bond between David and the people of the Judahite Negeb as surely as the preceding stories do for the Wilderness of Judah and specifically the area east of Hebron. Taken together these material prepare us for II Sam 2:1-4, the proclamation of David as king of Judah.”

I Samuel 30:1,14,26

Stern: “King Saul made a concerted effort to destroy Amalek, following the prophet Samuel's call for the ban (1 Sam. 15), but enough Amalekites survived to destroy David's city of Ziklag (1 Sam. 30.1). Nevertheless, after Ziklag the Amalekites ceased to trouble Israel. 1 Chronicles 4.42-43 depicts the tribe of Simeon as eradicating the remnant of Amalek, fulfilling God's earlier promise.”

“The sight of a burnt-out, totally deserted town [as illustrated in the collage above] was more than the troops could bear...David...was held responsible for the disaster, 'for the people spoke of stoning him.' Never since his flight from Gibeah and Saul had David stood so alone..Far from blaming God for allowing the destruction of the city, David took the reprisal of the Amelekites as one of life's hazards, in which he could draw on the resources of a faithful covenant Lord.” (Baldwin)

Tsumura echoes this last thought: “In this situation [30:1] David strengthened himself in the Lord, his God. Only the intimate relationship with his personal God gave him strength in such a critical time.”

Seibert: “David...recovers people and possessions taken by the Amalekites in a raid on Ziklag (1 Sam 30:18-19).”

“David reflects Saul's generosity after the battle of Ziklag (1 Sam 30:21-25)...” (C.J.H. Wright)

II Samuel 1:1, 4:10

Ziklag is again mentioned in this first verse of II Samuel where David receives the news of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The news is delivered by an Amelekite who has travelled roughly 80 miles to David's outpost to tell him, hoping to thus obtain an important position in David's kingdom or another reward. This Amelekite even brags untruthfully that he was the one who personally dispatched Saul. The reader knows this is a lie from I Samuel 31. “So on the first page of another biblical book we run straight into the God who exposes us, who delights in truth in the inward parts (Ps 51:6), who sets our secret sins in the light of his presence (Ps. 90:8).” (D. R. Davis)

Davis also points out that there is an almost identical story found in I Samuel 4 in which two commanders of the forces of Ishbaal, son of Saul, decide to murder him in order to get into David's good graces. But instead of a reward for their deed, they are put to death by him instead. As McCarter says, “Their treachery is born not of revenge but of crass opportunism and the hope of a reward from David...Thus we see that “David...was reluctant to press his own interests at the expense of the house of Saul, for whom he continued to carry respect and loyalty.” After all, David fully kept in mind that God Himself had chosen Saul to be the king of Israel.

I Chronicles 4:30; 12:1,20

“This list of Simeonite settlements [in verse 4:30] is drawn with only slight changes from Jos. 19:2-8.” (Williamson)

And Howard notes: “The genealogy of Simeon [I Chron. 4] (24-43) is very fragmentary and this reflects the fact that it lost its tribal identity very early, becoming absorbed into Judah...The final portion of the chapter deals with the Simeonite chiefs who were forced to migrate due to overpopulation and lack of pasture, suggesting a semi-nomadic type of life to a late date.”

Concerning I Chron. 12:1-7, Ellison states that it “gives a list of Benjamites (v. 2) who supported David. They are mentioned first because their action was the more remarkable when we consider that Saul belonged to their tribe. A comparison of v. 1 with vv. 8,16 shows that they were not the first to join David in point of time.”

Williamson: “As for the chronological setting of the material [in I Chron. 11-12] is concerned.., the Chronicler ordered his material by theme rather than strict historical order...Rather we should observe that, according to the geographical indications supplied, the material is arranged in a chiastic [i.e., mirror-image] structure,” as in Figure 1 below:

    1. Hebron (11:10)

        2. Ziklag (12:1)

            3. The Stronghold (12:8)

            3'. The Stronghold (12:16)

        2'. Ziklag (12:20)

    1'. Hebron (12:23)

This is an important observation in that this sort of arrangement of material in the Old and New Testament often follows a topical scheme rather than one which is strictly chronological. So again see here that exact chronological order in the Bible is not necessarily to be expected. Instead there may be some more topical arrangement at work.

Howard's comments on Chapter 12 are as follows: “These lists seem to be drawn from very early material...The evidence of such large-scale defections to David indicates how it was possible for him to secure the throne immediately after Saul's death. The process, however, was under the hand of God, a point the Chronicler emphasizes in the use of the words of Amasai, For your God will help you 12:18).”

Nehemiah 11:28

This verse is the last one in the Old Testament to mention Ziklag. “The verses [i.e. 11:25-36] list towns and villages in the former territories of Judah (vv. 25-30) and Benjamin (vv. 31-36). No reason can be given for the non-mention of important settlements mentioned elsewhere in Ezra and Nehemiah.” (Cundall)

Fensham: “Much has been written on the origin of this list of cities...The real problem with this list is that it creates the impression that the Jews lived in a much larger area than expected. The question is whether this list delineates the limits of the Persian province of Judah...It seems better to assume that some of the cities listed refer to areas with a partially Jewish population. The Jews are citizens of the Persian empire and could move to and fro in the different provinces.”

“I Chron ix attributes the list to the time of the return; Neh xi to that following the completion of the rebuilding the wall.” (Myers) Concerning verses 25-36 specifically, he states, “Evidently the writer was concerned primarily with relating how, after the reconstruction of the wall and the consequent multiplication of space, the authorities put on a campaign to repopulate the capital. That move emphasized the other side of the matter, namely, that many of the people were content to live in the outlying areas of Judah.” He speculates that the list could refer “to those who were not too eager to move to Jerusalem.”