I TIMOTHY 6:1-16

My previous analysis of I Timothy (see the post titled “I and II Timothy: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) indicated the symmetrical arrangement for 6:1-19 shown below:

A. Servants (6:1-2a)

B. False teachers (6:2b-10)

B'. True teachers (6:11-16)

A'. The Rich (6:17-19)

Since I have already posted my comments on verses 17-19, I would like to now share some insights into vv. 1-16 found in the scholarly literature on that subject, leaning heavily on Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.

Advice to Servants (vv. 1-2a)

verse 1: Hendricksen states, “ With the entrance of the Christian religion into the fabric of Roman society, difficult problems arose...his way toward a solution commends itself by reason of its evident wisdom. It avoids extremes which would have resulted in much harm both to the slave and to his master, and it would have reflected dishonor upon the cause of the Christian religion.”

verse 2: “Even believing slaves and masters are viewed as 'brethren' (1 Tim 6:2; also see Philemon). Yet brotherly equality is never used as an excuse not to serve one another.” (DBI)

Warnings Against False Teachers (vv. 2b-10)

verses 3-6: Mitchell calls vv. 3-5 “a portrait of the unsound teacher, with many resonances to 1:3-11” and explains, “The catchword gain [see vv. 5,6] leads to a favorite philosophical and biblical (Job 1.21; Eccl. 5.15) commonplace about the false security of riches (taken up again in 6.17-19).”

verses 7-8: “We can take only the 'self' [out of the world] (cf. Job 1:21; Luke 12:20)...We shall face our Maker alone, with no baggage. Everything will depend on whether we are in Christ...The identity of the we [in v. 8] makes all the difference...If we are people of godliness (v. 6) we are not secularists, tied down to our own age. Our eyes are on the distant horizon, for we are pilgrims with a heavenly destiny as well as witnesses to our own times.” (Ward)

verse 9: “ Strong words are used in the description of those whose desires are set upon the acquistion of wealth. The words apply to all whose aims are controlled by the passion to increase material possessions in themselves. The apostle is not so much thinking of those who are already rich, as of those ever grasping to become so.” (Guthrie)

verse 10: “Wandering is...used to picture deviation from faith (1 Tim 6:10), from light (John 8:12), from the Lord (1 Sam 12:20-21; Deut 29:38) and from the path of life available to those who follow wisdom (Prov 5:6).” (DBI)

“Since a plant's root may be viewed as its very life source, the Bible occasionally uses the image to describe the source of someone or something...Paul views Israel as the 'root' from which the people of God spring (Rom 11:16,18). He also warns that the love of money is the root, or source, of all kinds of evil (I Tim 6:10).” (DBI)

Advice to Teachers (vv. 11-16)

verse 11: “For leaders in Christ's church, integrity is essential (2 Cor 4:2): they flee immorality (1 Tim 6:11), do not act from impure motives (1 Thess 2:3) and avoid presenting stumbling blocks for others (2 Cor 6:3).” (DBI)

“Meekness is a virtue that NT Christians are commended to 'put on' (Col 3:12) and 'aim at' (1 Tim 6:11), and Christians are repeatedly exhorted to 'be' meek or gentle (Tit 3:2; 1 Pet 2:18; cf. 1 Thess 2:7; Jas 13, 17).” (DBI)

“The NT exhorts God's people to flee unrighteousness (1 Cor 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim 6:11) and to pursue righteousness and all its attendants (Rom 12:10; 14:19; 1 Cor 14:1; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:11). The nature of this flight and chase reveal one's character and motives.” (DBI)

verse 12: “Paul writes to Timothy about 'the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession,' (1 Tim 6:12 RSV), and to the Thessalonians about being called 'through our gospel' to be saved (2 Thess 2:13-14). Here the calling of God is the general call to salvation and sanctification that comes in the same form to all people.” (DBI)

verse 13: Knight explains that “paraggello (see 1:3) means here 'I charge,' i.e., 'I command' or 'I direct.' It is in the first person to express Paul's authority as Christ's apostle (cf. 1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:4,6,10,12, especially vv. 6 and 12).”
verse 14: “Although Genesis 3 puts the emphasis on the willful disobedience of Adam and Eve, the NT commentary evokes a complementary picture of the pathos of Eve as a victim of Satan 's seduction (1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14).” (DBI)

verse 15: Lea states, “In vv. 15-16 Paul expressed seven statements of majestic praise to God in a moving doxology. In v. 15 he used three names in a description of God. The phrases are Jewish in style and praise the unique sovereignty of God...All three titles fit well with the emphasis that the return of Christ is certain ('God will bring [it] about') and sovereignty in his hands ('in his own time'). Paul's certainty of Christ's return did not cause him arbitrarily to set a date.”

“The image of four horsemen (Rev 6:1-8) illustrates the difference between power and authority...Only Christ, rider of the white horse, returns later and wears the name 'King of kings and Lord of lords' (Rev. 19:1-16; cf. Rev 17:14; Dan 2:47; 1 Tim 6:15).” (DBI)

verse 16: “Writers who portray the transcendent also use a technique of negation, denying to the spiritual world the qualities of finite reality. In such 'negative theology' God is portrayed in terms of what he is not – 'immortal' (not mortal; Rom 1:23; 1 Tim 1:17), 'beyond measure' (Ps 147:5), 'unapproachable' (1 Tim 6:16).” (DBI)

“By extension, God who is light inhabits a heaven bathed in light. Here light becomes the preeminent symbol for transcendence, dear to the mystics' and poets' expressions through the ages. The classic passage is 1 Timothy 6:16...” (DBI)

Concerning the statement that no man has seen God, Davids canvasses those passages reporting people witnessing the presence of God. These include Exodus 24:11; Exodus 33:18-20, 29; Ezekiel 1-2; Isaiah 6:1-5. But he notes that in no case did they actually see his face.

“The Bible describes God both as living in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:10) and as dwelling in thick darkness (Ps 97:2; Ps 104:2).” (DBI)

COMMENTARIES ON EPHESIANS: PART 2

 While Bible commentaries and dictionaries are the most utilized resources for most serious Bible readers (see Part 1), there is a surprisingly diverse number of additional aids which are often overlooked.

Study Bibles

These may seem obvious to some, but many people in choosing a Bible to purchase simply make their choice based on the translation with which they are most familiar. I would suggest that one also keep in mind the special features present in a good study Bible. These may include any or all of the following: short commentaries on difficult passages, cross-references to other Bible passages, brief introductions to each book, footnotes with alternative readings for those verses in which the original language may be difficult to understand or in which various manuscripts contain significant variations, Bible atlases, maps accompanying the text, short subject indices, etc. Before buying one, you would be well-served to look at it in person or carefully study the features of each possibility on line.

In general, the theological tenor of the comments accompanying the text will match up with the translation in question with, for example, The Jerusalem Bible is geared more toward a Roman Catholic audience, editions of NRSV being somewhat on the liberal side, ESV being decidedly evangelical in tone, and editions of loose paraphrases such as TEV or The Message generally having little or nothing in the way of study aids.

Regarding Ephesians specifically, one will find that NEB, for example, is very good at including footnotes indicating alternative translations (A few samples are given below), but contains no additional study aids.

Verse Translation Alternative Translation

2:20 foundation stone keystone

2:21 the whole building every structure

3:15 every family his whole family

3:19 the fullness of God himself the fullness which God requires

In contrast to the NEB, The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV contains a general introduction to each grouping of books (Pentateuch, Wisdom and Poetry, Gospels, etc.); essays on the development of the canon of the Bible, textual criticism, translation issues, various schools of interpretation, biblical geography, and cultural backgrounds; timelines; chronological table of ancient rulers; guide to weights and measures; parallel passages; and a set of color maps of the Holy Land over time. In addition, there is an approximately one-page introduction to each individual book, listing of textual variations and alternative translations on each page along with detailed notes regarding issues that might need special clarification.

One sample page of NRSV Study Bible contains the following footnotes concerning Ephesians 4-5:

    4:22-24 “The old lifestyle, like worn-out clothing must be replaced by a new lifestyle guided by one's knowledge of Christ.”

    4:25 “See Zech 8.16.”

    4:26-27 “Indulged anger (see Ps 4.4) is an opportunity for demonic influence (cf. v. 31).”

    4:30 “Seal, see 1.13”

    4:32-5:2 “Christians must imitate God's (see Mt 5.48) and Christ's forgiveness and self-sacrificial actions. Fragrant offering, see Ex 29.18; Ezek 20.14; cf. Phil 4.18.”

    5:3-5 “Sexual sins are the primary focus in these verses.”

    5:8 “Darkness/light, apocalyptic imagery for the domains of the hostile spiritual powers and of God and Christ.”

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

I have found this to be a very useful reference book to illustrate how the NT authors utilized ideas and imagery from the OT in their writings. The chapter on Ephesians by Thielman is 20 pages long and contains detailed comments on eight extended passages by Paul which drew on the OT. For example, Ephesians 4:7-11 draws heavily on Psalm 68:18, and Thielman breaks up his comments on this correspondence into the following sub-sections: “Paul's Quotation in NT Context,” “Psalm 68:18 in OT Context,” “Psalm 68:18 in Jewish Interpretations,” “Paul's text,” “Paul's Use of Psalm 68:18,” and “The Theological Implications of Paul's Use of Psalm 68:18.” Thus, in a way, this chapter becomes not only a commentary on Ephesians 4, but also a commentary on Psalm 18, a textual commentary, and a theological essay as well.

Ephesians within the NT Canon

This is a whole subject in itself since it deals with questions of authorship, dating, and early Christian history. Brevard Childs has written a book on this subject (The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction) as well as a matching volume on the Old Testament. He devotes 13 pages to the Epistle to the Ephesians, divided into sub-sections dealing with subjects such as the letter's addressee, the problem of authorship, the purpose of the letter, and its canonical shape.

His conclusion is as follows: “Up to this point in the analysis we have described the epistle to the Ephesians in terms of indirect Pauline authorship. In fact, the major exegetical problems do not turn on deciding the question of authorship in a strictly historical sense. Rather, the central problem lies in evaluating the role and the validity of this extended witness of the apostle Paul which the canonical process has received, nourished, and shaped. It is significant to observe that the church did not canonize the process [of authorship] as normative, but rather the interpreted text. The role of canon does not consist in stifling the church's continued search in understanding the truth of the gospel, but rather it stakes out the arena in which the church confesses the Word of God has been and will be heard by the community of faith.”

Reading between the lines, it is fairly obvious that Childs is by no means a conservative Christian, and his somewhat skeptical attitude colors the way he approaches his subject. Nevertheless, he does impart some useful information as long as one does not accept all that he has to say on this subject without seriously examining it first.

Specialized Study Books

Stott's The Cross of Christ is one such example. The index to this book cites over forty pages which comment on the relation of Ephesians to that specific subject. Taking one random example, he writes, “Life in a Christian home, which should in any case be characterized by natural human love, should be further enriched by supernatural divine love, that is, the love of the cross. It should mark all Christian family relationships, between husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters. For we are to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ' (Eph. 5:21), the Christ whose humble and submissive love led him to the cross. Yet it is specially husbands who are singled out...(vv. 25-27). This Ephesians passage is commonly regarded as being very hard on wives, because they are to recognize the 'headship' God has given to their husbands. But it is arguable that the quality of self-giving love required of husbands is even more demanding....This is a Calvary love. It is both self-sacrificial (he 'gave himself up for her', v. 25) and constructive ('to make her holy' and resplendent, growing into her full potential, vv. 26-27). It is also caring and protective...(vv. 28-29). Christian homes in general, and Christian marriages in particular, would be more stable and more satisfying if they were marked by the cross.”

One other random example of a specialized study is a book by Beale and Gladd titled Hidden But Now Revealed. They expend over 50 pages just discussing the ins and outs of the subject of “Mystery” as it appears in Ephesians.

You would probably be surprised to see how many other Christian books dealing with an individual subject such as above have at least one reference to Ephesians.

Hermeneutics

This subject deals with general principles to keep in mind while attempting to interpret passages in the Bible. As such, books on this subject are likely to quote from Ephesians, or other parts of Scripture, to use as typical illustrations. One such trustworthy source for the general reader is Fee and Stuart's How to Read the Bible for All its Worth. It contains references to Ephesians scattered throughout, which can be be easily located through the index. Two such examples are quoted below:

“David, who expresses in the Psalms God's blessing in the strongest terms, lived a life that was filled with almost constant tragedy and disappointments; as 1 and 2 Samuel describe. Yet he praises and thanks God enthusiastically at every turn, even in laments, just as Paul advises us to do even in the midst of hard times (Eph. 1:16; 5:20).”

“Orthodoxy is correct belief. Orthopraxy is correct action. Through the prophets God calls the people of ancient Israel and Judah to a balance of right belief and action. This, of course, remains the very balance that the New Covenant requires as well (cf. James 1:27; 2:18; Eph 2:8-10).”

The Hermeneutical Spiral by Osborne is another useful resource. In his chapter of “Syntax” the author discusses in detail (6 pages) Ephesians 3:16-19, which he breaks down into “Prayer for power” (vv 16-17a), “Prayer for insight” (vv 17b-19a), and “Prayer for fullness” (v 19b).

Hermeneutical Mistakes

The negative aspects of prior writers attempting to interpret biblical passages is also the subject of at least two prominent books. The first is Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson. He spends six pages discussing such errors in Ephesians alone. At the conclusion of his book he states, “This discussion has necessarily treated fallacies piecemeal; but in the actual work of exegesis, some passages by their sheer complexity stir up a multiplicity of fallacies at the same time – in the same way that the law stirs up sin. I think of passages such as Psalm 110; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Matthew 16:13-23; Ephesians 5:21-30; and Revelation 20:1-6.” Therefore in such passages, one must be especially careful in trying to interpret them.
The second book on this subject of which I am aware is Abusing Scripture by Brauch. The index to this book contains approximately one hundred references to pages discussing passages in Ephesians. I will only cite one example. For 6 pages he discusses the subject of submission and how it has been often misunderstood, with special attention to Paul's comments in Ephesians 5:22-24. I won't repeat is detailed analysis here, but only quote his concluding remarks:

“The traditional Christian view regarding women has thus been nurtured for centuries by understandings and interpretations of words that are, at best, problematic, and may therefore be decidedly unbiblical, the consequence of abuse of words. This means that this Christian interpretive tradition has significantly contributed to the long and tragic history of women's inferior status, of their restricted roles in home, church and society, and of their frequent subjugation and abuse in hierarchical marriage relationships.”

Literary Structure

I have saved this one for last since it is my own favorite aspect of the Bible to investigate. While most commentaries and Bible dictionaries will at least contain a suggested table of contents to books such as Ephesians, analysis of the literary structure attempts to go one step further by showing how each individual passage relates to the others. It thus accomplishes several things at the same time by: providing a sort of internal commentary by locating parallel passages, acting as a guide to dividing up the book into its discrete paragraphs, and showing the main point(s) of emphasis intended by the author (whether one considers the human author or the ultimate author, the Holy Spirit).

Some of the larger commentaries devoted to only one biblical book will provide such proposed organizations or structures (generally symmetrical in nature), but one should not be surprised to find that there will often be a wide variety of such schemes proposed depending on the author.

This general field of structural literary analysis in itself the subject of exceedingly few recent scholarly books. There is David Dorsey's The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, but unfortunately he does not have a corresponding New Testament analysis. However, one fallback option is to simply search on this present website for my “Ephesians: Introduction to the Literary Structure” (or for any of the other books in the Bible). It is a brief summary of a much longer chapter to my unpublished book The Structure of Scripture. If you would like me to forward you by email the complete chapter on Ephesians or any other book in the Bible, just send me a message at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

There are, however, two additional sources which may or may not be of help if you are interested.

One is Chiasmus in Antiquity by John Welch. A major limitation of this book is that it deals with only a single form of literary symmetry employed in the Bible, namely, chiasms. These are mirror-image arrangements illustrated by one such example he finds in Ephesians 4:4-6:

        a. One body (4a)

                b. One spirit (4b)

                        c. One hope (4c)

                                d. One Lord (5a)

                        c'. One faith (5b)

                b'. One baptism (5c)

        a'. One Father in all (6a)

This is fairly typical of Welch's analyses in that it is very weak indeed. Thus, it is hard to see any particularly clear-cut parallel whatsoever between a and a' or between b and b', even if c and c' do have similarities. Also, one would expect the references to the three persons of the Trinity to be symmetrically located at the beginning, center, and conclusion, which they certainly are not. In addition, in a chiasm one finds the main point of emphasis at the center whereas section a' appears to have the most emphasis in this series with its four-fold repetition of the word “all.” In conclusion, one should take all the analyses in Welch's book with a large grain of salt, and that is especially true of Welch's chapter on the Book of Mormon (He himself in an elder in that church).

John Breck's The Shape of Biblical Language is more trustworthy. For one thing it rightly broadens the concept of a chiasm to include parallel elements within mirror-image ones as well as recognizing symmetrical structures which have no center-point. The latter is demonstrated below in his analysis of Ephesians 5:21-33.

        a. Submit yourself in reverence [fear] for Christ (v. 21)

                b. Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as the Church does to Christ (vv. 22-24)

                        c. Husbands, love your wives as Christ did the Church (v. 25)

                                d. that [hina] he might sanctify her (v. 26)

                                d'. that [hina] he might present the Church to himself in splendor (v. 27)

                        c'. Husbands should love their wives as their one bodies (vv. 28-30)

                b'. A man should join his wife, referring also to Christ and the Church (vv. 31-32)

        a'. Let each man love his wife as himself and let the wife respect [fear] her husband (v. 33)

As you can see, this organization, in contrast to that of Welch, is firmly based on parallels both in specific wording and themes.

COMMENTARIES ON EPHESIANS

In an earlier post titled “Bible Commentaries and Dictionaries” I discussed in a rather general way these aids to reading the Bible intelligently. Now I would like to zero in one particular book of the Bible to show how the different approaches to commenting on Scripture play out in practice.

Amount of detail

It is rather obvious that an entry on Ephesians in a standard Bible dictionary cannot go into nearly as much detail regarding that epistle as can a full-length commentary on that book alone. Thus concerning Ephesians, we run the gamut from a 3-1/2 page entry by Marcus Barth in The Oxford Companion to the Bible to the same author's two-volume, 1,200+ page Anchor Bible commentary on the same subject. It all depends on how much depth one wishes to go into as to which extreme (or something in between) better fits your particular needs.

As a general rule, I have found that many modern commentary series tend to have begun as simple introductions for the general reader, but soon morphed into longer and longer, as well as more and more detailed, tomes seemingly better suited for pastors and other professional Bible scholars. It certainly is the case for both the Anchor Bible and New International Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. For example, the NICNT commentary on Ephesians began in 1957 with the publication of a 300-page book covering both Ephesians and Colossians. But it was supplanted within the series in 2020 by a commentary on Ephesians alone by Cohick which weighed in at well over 500 pages.

Whereas a stand-alone commentary on Ephesians can afford to cover almost every important subject related to that epistle in detail, one- or two-volume commentaries on the Bible contain much more limited space. Nevertheless, most competent authors will use that restricted space wisely and manage to cover, if only briefly, basic introductory matter such as authorship, historical context, main themes, and organization before beginning their verse-by-verse analysis and explanation.

 Emphasis

It also turns out that each individual commentator tends to have his own pet area of interest, which is bound to be reflected in the relative amount of space spent discussing that particular aspect of any biblical book. Again, taking Ephesians as an example, consider Harold Hoehner's massive, 900-page commentary on this book. In discussing the sixteen verses of Ephesians 4 alone, as just one example, he expends 80 pages of text. These include over 300 quite detailed footnotes listing additional resources, both ancient and modern, one might want to consult for other information on the verses in question. Other professional Bible scholars today would probably greatly appreciate such references to these often obscure sources, but it is highly doubtful that a general reader would really go to all the trouble of trying to locate the writings of St. Cyril or Chrysostom just in order to find out what they have to say on a given subject.

But what about Marcus Barth's detailed commentary? It also contains some quite long footnotes, but in contrast to Hoehner's these do not merely list a compendium of additional resources. Instead, they go into detail concerning exactly what these sources actually say so that one does not have to take the time to dig up the original writings.

In addition, Barth includes a series of essays on particular subjects brought up by the Scriptural text in question. Concerning Ephesians 4, after his verse-by-verse comments on this chapter he appends fifty pages of essays on eight specific subjects ranging from “The Indictment of the Gentiles” to “Truth in Jesus” to “The Sin Against the Spirit.” Personally, I find these much more enlightening than a mere bibliographic listing.

Theology

As I have probably mentioned before, most general readers are generally somewhat suspicious regarding the denominational background of the author of a commentary, and this is understandable. But in practice it turns out that, with some notable exceptions, serious Bible scholars of quite diverse theological backgrounds tend to a large extent to agree with one other more than one would think. Instead, the biggest differences seem to be between the liberal and conservative wings of Christianity than, for example, the differences between Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics.

Consider the comments in Father R.E. Brown's Introduction to the New Testament. His not very surprising opinion is that Ephesians exemplifies “the initial stages of high ecclesiology, sacramentalism, hierarchy, ordination, and dogma – in short the beginning of the distinctive features of Catholic Christianity.” But not so expected by many readers is the fact that Brown also agrees with most liberal scholars in denying that Paul was the author of this work.

Moving to the more conservative compilation The New Bible Dictionary, F.F. Bruce, the noted evangelical author of the article on Ephesians, readily admits that there are objections raised against Pauline authorship and even goes to the length of fairly presenting the main five problem areas that have been raised. But in spite of that, he remains fully confident that Paul is indeed the author and refers the reader to other resources which refute these objections. And if one were to consult the even more conservative commentaries designed for a popular audience, you should not be surprised at all if the subject of Pauline authorship is not even discussed or questioned at all. In addition, these sorts of popular writings generally tend to avoid any controversial subjects whatsoever, but only what they feel might bolster the readers up in the faith and not cause them any distress they might feel in encountering unfamiliar ideas.

Moritz, writing in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, contains a 4-page summary of the major theological thought in Ephesians, divided into categories such as “Celebrating divine grace,” “The Spirit as the seal of salvation,” “Grace, election and salvation,” and “Walking in Christ.” In the section discussing “Heaven as an expression of divine kingship,” for example, he cites Ephesians 1:3,10,20; 2:6; 3:10,14-15; and 6:12 and discusses what each of these passages has to say regarding that subject.

Early Translations and Commentaries

If you go on the Internet looking for free access to commentaries available there, you will most likely find several to choose between, all written a century or more ago. There are several problems you will encounter in trying to utilize them as your main sources of information regarding a book like Ephesians. In the first place, they will all be based on the King James translation, which has been shown to be much less accurate in rendering the meaning of the original Greek text than most modern translations in a number of places.

Secondly, KJV is written in the English language of 1611, and therefore its original meaning can be easily misunderstood. That same factor also works against the older commentators in the often stilted (to our ears) language with which they express their comments.

As one random example taken from Matthew Henry's 1710 commentary on Ephesians, here is his introduction to Ephesians 1:3-14: “He begins with thanksgivings and praise, and enlarges with a great deal of fluency and copiousness of affection upon the exceedingly great and precious benefits which we enjoy by Jesus Christ. For the great privileges of our religion are very aptly recounted and enlarged upon in our praises to God.” Not every Bible student could readily understand these words at first reading.

Specialized Dictionaries and Commentaries

These resources are often ignored by those wishing to know more about a portion of Scripture they are reading. What one might lose in terms of a comprehensive understanding, is often gained in terms of how they enlighten the reader concerning one particular aspect of the text. Below are a few examples:

Word Studies These come in all sizes, from a one-volume book by W.E. Vine to multi-volume sets. Thus, Vine lists seven types of occasions in which the Greek word eirene (“peace”) is used in the New Testament. One of these types refers to “the harmonized relationships between God and man, accomplished through the gospel, Acts 10:36; Eph. 2:17.” With such information, one can (a) compare those two passages for content or (b) contrast Ephesians 2:17 with the other types of 'peace' illustrated in the New Testament.

At the other extreme is the 3-volume Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Its 7-page entry on eirene begins with a listing of all the Greek words derived from it, what it meant in classical Greek as well as in the Greek translations of the OT and early Jewish literature before moving onto a listing of six different nuances to the word along with most of the NT passages containing it.

The author places Ephesians 4:23, along with Acts 7:26 and Galatians 5:22, into the category relating to harmony among men. “Hence the word can describe both the content and the goal of all Christian preaching, the message itself being called 'the gospel of peace' (Eph. 6:15; cf. Acts 10:36; Eph. 2:17). In other words, the biblical concept of peace (from salom) is primarily that of wholeness.”

But in addition, Ephesians 1:2 and 6:23 can be included under the category in which eirene is “opposed to akatastasia, disorder; peace is an order established by God as the God of peace.”

Finally, relating to a third category, “Peace, in the sense of wholeness both for men and the world (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), brings a newness to human relationships...God in Christ has come preaching peace” as in Ephesians 2:17.

Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics contains an index which contains roughly 200 different listings to passages within Ephesians. These include everything from overviews of the whole book to detailed discussions of specific ethical issues about which Ephesians has something to say. I picked one of these listings at random and it turned out to be a general introduction to the book by Sumney which states, “Ephesians addresses a more general audience and a less specific situation than any of the undisputed Pauline Letters. By its time, arguments about the place of gentiles in the church had cooled, so the letters emphasis on unity is less polemical than what we find in Galatians. The arguments in Ephesians remain so general that many see it as kind of circular letter. Its emphasis on unity makes Ephesians a letter than focuses on innerecclesial relations. This ecclesial focus dominates the ethical outlook of Ephesians.”

Hard Sayings of the Bible, as its title implies, concentrates only on those individual statements which its authors feel are most likely to be misunderstood or confusing to the reader. So, regarding the Epistle to the Ephesians specifically, there are short essays attempting to explain what 4:9-10 meant by talking about Christ ascending and descending; the submission of wives in 5:22; and whether Paul approved of slavery (6:5-8). As you can see, it is a commentary which is quite restricted in scope, but one which may be very useful to those puzzled by what Ephesians may say at a given point. This is in contrast to those commentaries which seem to purposefully steer away from a discussion on any controversial issue.

Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy would appear on the surface to be a poor source of information regarding a book like Ephesians. However, its author, J. Barton Payne, manages to identify seven different verses in this epistle referring to prophecies, whether fulfilled in the past or in events yet to come. To each of these, he assigns a number corresponding to one of the specific chronological ages he lists, ranging from the Primeval-Patriarchal Era (#1) to the inauguration of the New Jerusalem (#17). Thus, we have Ephesians 2:12 referring to Period #13 (Life of Christ); 1:13 assigned to Period # 14 (Establishment of the Church); 1:14, 4:30, 5:14 and 5:27 to #15 (Christ's Second Coming); and 1:18 and 1:21 to #16 (The Millennium). Of course, if one were to ask a amillennialist or a dispensationsalist to go though the same exercise, a quite different set of assignments would probably result.

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery is another rich source of information regarding the various hyperbolas, similes, metaphors, etc. present in the Bible. Through the indices at the back of the book, one can search by either Scripture verse or subject. There are actually over 250 specific references to the various images in the book of Ephesians which can be found here.

Picking up on just one such image, that of exclusion, in Ephesians 2:11-13, the anonymous author of one article says, “The Gentile audience was formerly scorned as 'uncircumcision' (akrobystia) by those who proudly called themselves 'the circumcision' (peritome, Eph 2:11). They were 'without Christ; that is, they were outside of the chosen people in whom the Messiah, the true king and deliverer of Israel , was rooted. They were 'separated from the commonwealth of Israel,' like impoverished outsiders who gazed longingly across the border at the privileged people in their fair land. They were 'aliens to the covenants of promise;' having no access to the series of historic divine transactions that promised the blessings of a true humanity...They were 'without hope and without God (atheioi) in the world.' a people separated from the Creator and covenant God, listless vagabonds upon the earth with no future worth living for. Viewed from the ramparts of Zion, they were 'far off' (Eph 2:13), over the horizon. These images form a picture of irrevocable exclusion, of particularized privilege, of clearly marked insiders and outsiders.”

Other less obvious sources of information regarding Ephesians are discussed in Part 2 of this post.

WAS KING SAUL A VILLAIN? (I SAMUEL 9-31)

Some people apparently think only in terms of black and white when they read a book or watch a movie so that, for example, whether it is a romance, war drama, or mystery, the main thing they are looking for is to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. In the early days before the talkies, those two extremes were easy to distinguish from one another since the villain in a melodrama generally had a long mustache which he loved to twirl between his fingers or, if it was a cowboy movie, he wore a black hat in contrast to the hero who always had a white one. As audiences became more sophisticated, the clues became much more subtle.

Then when Alfred Hitchcock came along, he turned the tables on the audience entirely by often making the villains the most charming or sympathetic characters in his movies, while it was the “heroes” who generally possessed some fatal flaw. Hitchcock did this to demonstrate that each of us has within ourselves the potential to act in either an admirable or despicable manner.

So when we approach an epic story like that in I and II Samuel centering around King Saul's fall from power and David's rise, we should avoid the temptation to simply label Saul as the villain in the piece and David as the man in the white hat. As William B. Grey wrote in an old poem, “She [or He in this case] is more to be pitied than censured.” If we don't try to see ourselves in each of these men's shoes, we will be missing out on many of the lessons God has intended for us.

We should first of all remember that when Samuel was seeking God's choice for the first king of Israel, he was led to Saul. But instead of Saul being flattered that such an important man was talking to him, Saul's comment, as recorded in I Samuel 9:21, was simply, “Am I not a Benjaminite, from the least of the tribes of Israel? And is not my family the humblest of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then have you spoken to me in this way?”

I will admit that I see myself here in that reply. At my workplace, they were looking for a replacement for a group leader who had been transferred to another location. Our Lab Director called me into his office and tried to sell me on taking the job myself. My honest reply was, “Why didn't you ask [I named two more chemists whom I myself would have chosen] instead?” Unlike Samuel's words and actions, our rather blunt Director blurted out, “Do you really think I would have approached you if those two hadn't already turned me down?”

It happened that, like Saul, I eventually got that promotion from a command at our headquarters somewhat against my will and quite certainly against our Director's will. We actually see the same sort of thing in I Samuel 10 when lots are being openly drawn to reveal God's candidate for king. It all comes down to Saul, but he is nowhere to be found. In v. 22 God himself has to show everyone where Saul is hiding among the baggage while hoping he will not be discovered. Saul is revealed in this episode as being anything but a power-hungry man. But time and circumstances will change him for the worse.

The first hint we are given as to Saul's fatal flaw is found in Chapter 13 when Saul has assembled a rather frightened army to fight the advancing Philistine troops. Instead of waiting until Samuel arrived to give a sacrifice to God to bless their endeavor, Saul took that duty on himself in violation of Samuel's instructions. Saul's motive in taking that drastic action is explained as being due to Saul's fear that his troops would desert if he waited any longer.

We find that same unfortunate attitude in a slightly different guise in many of the more fundamentalist churches with which I have been acquainted. Their constant mantra is not “What is right in God's eye?” but “What will people think?” Thus, they seem to view other people, whether believers or unbelievers, as the judge they must fear and satisfy rather than the only true Judge. These people have not really rejected God, but they are exhibiting by their words and actions that they are far more concerned with how they might appear in their fellow men's eyes.

I Samuel 14 contains another telling episode in which Saul attempts to do the right thing in God's eyes but in the end backs down to peer pressure. On the plus side, Saul punishes his troops who are so hungry after the successful battle that they eat meat before first ritually draining out the blood. But on the negative side, Saul's desire to give in to the will of the majority rather than following God's will is exhibited again when it turns out that his own son Jonathan had inadvertently disobeyed a curse Saul had placed on any of his troops who ate before the battle was over. Although Jonathan is willing to be punished for his actions, in violation of Saul's own vow to God, he spares Jonathan's life once his troops demand it of him.

I Samuel 15 describes another successful battle, this time against the Amelekites. But the aftermath is just as disastrous as in the previous chapter. For instead of totally demolishing the enemy and all they possessed, as God commanded, Saul decided to save their king as a sort of trophy and let the troops keep all the enemy livestock. When Samuel confronts him with his disobedience, Saul makes the excuse in v. 21 that it was okay for his troops to take the animals since they were planning to sacrifice them to God at Gilgal. Whether or not that would ever have been taken, Saul had again definitely violated God's direct command. At least this time after Samuel's harsh rebuke, Saul breaks down in v. 24 and admits that his motive was not to go against his people's wishes out of fear that they might rebel.

The incident ends in a rather strange way in that after Samuel has made it clear to Saul that God will take his kingdom away from him, Saul asks Samuel to honor him in front of the people and Samuel agrees with that request. In other words, just pretend for a little longer that everything is all right between you, me and God.

I can identify in a way with Samuel here since I was once asked to do the same thing for a chemist in my section who was fired. He asked me to pretend as if he had just decided to retire on his own and to give him a sending-off party so that he could put on a good front for his family and peers. I felt a little uneasy carrying on that pretense but it appeared to go well for all.

In I Samuel 16, things take a darker turn for Saul since we learn in verse 14 that God's Spirit was withdrawn from Saul, who then began to be tormented by an evil spirit. That statement needs a little clarification. McKane says that “the charismatic endowment reserved for the king of Israel has passed to David, leaving Saul not merely impotent, but demented and ravelled, so that he needs the solace of music. And Porter explains that the evil spirit being 'from the Lord' is “no doubt in the sense that all things are within the ultimate control of Yahweh.”

The end result for poor Saul can be medically described, as Howard does, in terms of “a severe manic / depressive illness with marked schizoid overtones. His paranoia, lack of foresight, faulty judgment, etc. are all classical signs.”

The results bring up problematic issues for the reader such that Porter concludes by stating, “His [i.e. God's] choice as king is difficult to understand. How could Yahweh select as king one predestined to failure? His call is, to the human mind, as incomprehensible as that of Judas Iscariot.”

I will not further detail the downhill spiraling course of Saul's life other than to mention than in his more lucid moments he admits to David, the man he has been relentlessly pursuing to kill, that David is far more noble than he is (see I Samuel 24:16-22; 26:21-25). The lowest point for poor Saul comes when he is so desperate to get any word from God that he consults the witch (i.e. spiritual medium) of Endor, even though he himself had outlawed all such people from his land. The spirit of the departed Samuel appears to him and confirms that David will soon be king in his stead and that Saul will die in battle, both of which happen.

One can also analyze Saul's situation in terms of the well-known and rightly important management axiom called the Peter principle, which states: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." Again, I can relate to that based on my own years of experience working within a hierarchical structure. I did get promoted several times before I retired, but topped out at a certain point when someone else got a key job everyone, including myself, thought I was going to get instead. Soon afterward, I became very happy that I hadn't gotten that promotion because I realized that I would not have been able to handle it nearly as well as the man who became my new boss.

 

THE MAN WITH THE WATER PITCHER (MATTHEW 26:17-19; MARK 14:12-16; LUKE 22:8-12)

When it comes to the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem for the last time to meet his death by crucifixion, most biblical scholars spend pages of print discussing the timing of the events. Especially confusing is the chronological relationship of the Last Supper with the Passover meal and whether the two are pictured as separate or identical meals.

But rather than rehashing all the arguments revolving around that rather complicated issue, I would like to spend a little time zeroing in on the events immediately preceding that Last Supper Jesus had with his closest followers. If you recall, both Mark's and Luke's accounts closely follow one another in describing Jesus' instructions to Peter and John for them to enter the city where they would meet a man carrying a water pitcher. They are told to follow him to the guest chamber already prepared for the meal. By contrast, Matthew only tells them to meet “such-and-such man” and follow him, and John omits the episode entirely.

Some of the controversies regarding these parallel passages are given below with comment by various scholars weighing in on these issues:

Was Jesus speaking prophetically or had he made prior arrangements with the owner of the house?

In terms of the arrangements regarding the man who was assigned to show the two apostles the location of the proper house, Geldenhuys feels that Jesus “had probably arranged with him that at a given time during the morning before the Passover he should be with a pitcher of water at a certain near the portal where his disciples would enter the city...”

Marshall concludes that “it is a moot point whether he is simply giving directions in terms of a previously-made secret arrangement with the owner of the room or is acting with supernatural knowledge and authority.”

Craddock is also of two minds regarding this issue: “In view of that [i.e. possible threats on Jesus' life], one could easily read Jesus' instructions to Peter and John as intriguing prearrangements, as shadowy moves in a mystery novel...And there is no reason not to think in terms of Jesus' having made plans for observing the Passover. However, both here and at 19:28-34 Luke probably wants the reader to think in terms of Jesus' prophetic knowledge.”

We get the same sort of dual understanding from Fitzmyer, who says. “Jesus' foreknowledge is evident...But cf. Matt 26:18: 'Go into the city to so-and-so,' which clearly implies prearrangement on the part of Jesus.”

Anderson adds, “It was quite usual for pilgrims to plan ahead for a room for the Passover. But the title the teacher (cf. [Mark] 5:36), correctly rendered as a proper name in RSV, and the somewhat unexpected possessive in the phrase my guest room, suggest that the one involved here is far more than an ordinary pilgrim

Who was the man with the pitcher?

Hendricksen: “According to Zahn this man was John Mark's father, then still alive. See Mark 14:51,52; Acts 12:12.” Grosheide also calls attention to this possibility, but does not necessarily endorse it. Hendricksen goes on to say: “His – as well as my – position is: we do not know. This holds also with respect to the theory that the man carrying the pitcher was John Mark himself. All such embellishments are nothing but speculation.”

My own suspicion is that John Mark was in fact that man the two apostles were sent to meet. In Mark 14:51-52, we run across a small incident not recorded in any of the other gospel accounts of a young follower running away from the authorities while leaving his clothing behind. The main question is not why the other evangelists ignore this event, but why Mark bothered to include it at all. At this point, I admit that I am not entirely alone in suggesting that the obvious solution is that the young man was in fact Mark himself. Also in favor of this embarrassing incident being autobiographical are the following factors:

The upper room location for the Last Supper appears to have been chosen in advance with secrecy at the house of John Mark's mother.

It is probable that it is also the house where the Last Supper was held.with secrecy in mind.

Whoever followed Jesus and the apostles to the Garden had to have done so by trailing them from that house.

When the apostles returned to Jerusalem waiting for the risen Jesus, we know that they were staying in secrecy at the house of John Mark's mother.

Thus, Mark records this highly embarrassing fact regarding his ignoble departure as an act of partial atonement for his actions. And as to what this has to do with the man with the pitcher, if indeed carrying a pitcher was women's work (see next section below), then that might be another autobiographical note Mark includes which also shows him in a rather embarrassing situation. Thus, these two incidents could be said to bracket the whole section starting with the preparations for the Passover right through to Jesus' arrest in the garden.

Was it unusual for a man to be carrying a water pitcher?

Geldenhuys quotes Major as stating “In the East it is women who bear pitchers of water; men carry water-skins.” Thus, it is reasoned, there would be no difficulty at all for the two apostles to identify the man they were looking for. Lane concurs with this opinion completely.

Fitzmyer is not quite as convinced and just says, “That may well have been a task for a woman in first-century Palestine. See Gen 24:11; John 4:7.”

Lastly, there is the more skeptical opinion of Marcus: “This suggestion [regarding only women carrying water jugs] goes back to Lagrange, who lived in Jerusalem at the turn of the twentieth century, and thus based on nothing more than his observation of Palestinian habits in his own day...It is true that in the OT carrying water is sometimes described as women's work (Gen 24:11-12, Exod 2:16, 1 Sam 9:11), but there are also OT passages that speak of men carrying water (e.g. Deut 29:10-11, Josh 9:21-27)...Jeremias suggests that the man in our story is either a domestic servant or a water seller. The theory that the disciples follow the man because they see him engaged in an unusual activity is also belied by the circumstance that it is he who approaches them...”

I have a story from my own life that may or may not have any bearing on this issue. Growing up in Southern California, I knew that one of the last thing a guy wanted to do was to take an umbrella with him even if it was already pouring down rain. If you did so, you would forever be labeled as a sissy. Then I moved to Oregon where it rains, or at least drizzles, most of the year. I was shocked when I started to walk around campus and saw men who looked like they must have been linemen on our football team carrying around huge black umbrellas. And so I joined the crowd.

But then we had four Cambodian men who were on campus as part of an exchange program. They all gleefully went to the Co-op and brought the most brightly colored women's umbrellas they could find and paraded around with them proudly, not realizing that they were standing out like sore thumbs. So how one dresses or carries around may speak volumes in one culture while not even being noticed in another one. Our ignorance regarding customs at Jesus' time requires that we be a little less definite in our pronouncements about things we do not completely understand.

Why was it necessary to employ such secrecy?

Marshall says, “The story itself suggests that Jesus made arrangements to hold the meal secretly, possibly in order to avoid arrest before he had completed what he intended to do; he is presented in the Gospels as being in control of the situation.”

“A sufficient reason for resorting to a means of recognition which would require no exchange of words in the street may be found in the determined search for Jesus and the issuance of a warrant for his arrest implied in John 11:57...It may be assumed that the owner of the house was a man of courage who had determined to shelter the 'heretic' Galilean and his outlawed company of followers.” (Lane)

Ellis suggests another possible reason for the secrecy: “The instructions are intended to avoid detection by the religious authorities. Perhaps this is because Jesus is already under threat of arrest or, less likely, because he is preparing to observe Passover at an illegal time.”

Are there any literary similarities between this event and others in the Bible?

Pao and Schnabel discuss and reject Boismard's suggested possibility that there are purposeful echoes of the incident in I Samuel 10 here since in that earlier episode the prophet Samuel gives Saul a sign that God will be with him. It reads in part “There as you come to the town, you will meet a band of prophets...[one] carrying a skin of wine...”

“The story is similar in pattern to that of the preparations for the entry to Jerusalem ([Lk] 19:22-35), and in both cases it is probable that the historical basis lies in a previous arrangement. (Marshall)

KNOWLEDGE IN 2 PETER

Quanbeck states, “Knowledge is one of the author's favorite words (1.2,3,5,6,8; 2:20; 3:18).” That makes exactly seven times in which it is used, the number 7 symbolically standing for perfection or completion.The contexts in which this word appears are also interesting to observe:

        1:2 the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord

        1:3 the knowledge of him who called us

        1:5 supplement...virtue with knowledge

        1:6 and knowledge with self-control

        1:8 the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ

        2:20 the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

        3:18 the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

I have previously demonstrated that this set of seven plays an important part in defining the symmetrical organization of this epistle (see my post on “II Peter: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”)

Green explains that in the context of II Peter, true knowledge was different than what the false teachers claimed to have. “True knowledge of God and Christ produces grace and peace in the life; what is more, it produces holiness.”

There are two examples of symmetry in this listing. The first and last two occurrences act as an inclusio [a set of bookends] for the whole letter, as indicated by the reversed wording

        “Jesus – Lord … Lord – Jesus.”

Next, note that the first two and last three in the series of seven concern the knowledge of Jesus, bracketing the two usages (1:6,8) in the center which do not specifically mention Him. However, as the footnote in the Jerusalem Bible points out, “All through this letter it is Christ who is proposed as the object of a Christian's knowledge.”

“Second Peter is characterized by an apocalyptic vision of this world as corrupt because of lust (1.4) and bound for destruction. It urges the reader to escape by means of the knowledge of Christ and of God and by earnest moral striving that is grounded in the promises and gifts of God. The goal is to participate in the divine nature and to enter the eternal kingdom (1.11).” (Tiller)

Reicke says, “The expression 'intimate knowledge' or 'adequate gnosis' appears repeatedly in the epistle. But the emphasis is not on the mystic experiences characteristic of Gnosticism, the representatives of which were proud of their 'gnosis' in the sense of ecstatic contact with eternity (cf. I Cor viii 1; II Cor xii 1-5). The author rather speaks polemically against the influence of Gnosticism (cf. Rev ii 14f.). Here it is a matter of continuously deepening knowledge of God's words in the plan of salvation, the life in Christ, and the eschatological hope. The believers were instructed in these subjects, when they were accepted into church fellowship, and it is now their responsibility to improve and apply their knowledge in these matters.”

Harvey also stresses the great importance of knowledge in this epistle, even labeling 1:3-21 “Life-Changing Knowledge of Jesus.” He goes on to say, “Peter's present boldness is the Holy Spirit inspiring him to strike a clear note as the theme of his letter: the Christian's ability by grace to discern between truth and falsehood, to endure hostility and persecution, and to live with hope and holiness while waiting for the 'new heaven and new earth,' all indeed realistic expectations because Christ has given everything we need to make these experiences happen.”

Payne says, “The message of the letter opens with a positive declaration of what God has given the Christian. Much of the phraseology of v. 3 recalls gnostic concepts and claims...against which Peter puts up the basic Christian truth that divine power, true knowledge (the Gk. word epignosis implies full knowledge), and all that stem from them, are the gifts of God, unmerited and but for His grace unattainable.”

“'Knowledge' [in 2 Peter 1:2]...implies an intimate and personal relationship. It is the means by which God's grace and peace may be received and experienced. Peter used this term epignosis again in 2 Peter 1:3, 8; and 2:20. The shorter form (gnosis) is found in 1:5-6 and 3:18. Christians are urged to take advantage of the 'full knowledge' available to them through Christ Jesus (each occurrence of epignosis in 2 Peter is related to Christ). In this way they could combat false teachers who claimed to have special knowledge (gnosis) but who openly practiced immorality (cf. Paul's usage of epignosis to combat incipient Gnosticism: Col. 1:9-10; 2:2; 3:10).” (Gangel)

Wheaton writes: “Knowledge is stressed here [i.e. 1:2] as the means by which grace and peace can be multiplied in the believer's life. The Gnostic deviationists exalted knowledge (Gk gnosis) as being superior to faith, and in reply orthodox writers stressed the importance for Christians to acquire epignosis, 'full knowledge', (as here) in order to combat this heresy. Such knowledge is never merely speculative, as was the Gnostic variety, but springs from a personal relationship with and experience of God in Jesus our Lord (cf. Jn. 17:3; Phil. 3:10).”

Schmitz: “The knowledge of God's truth is of equal importance with experiential profession of the Lord, and finally pushes it into the background. Hence, conversion to the Christian faith can be described almost technically as coming to a knowledge (epignosis) of the truth (2 Pet. 2:21, etc). In 2 Pet. epignosis is used in a similar theoretical, technical way in connection with God's call. Knowledge is here of the orthodox tradition, of the catholic [i.e. universal] doctrinal teaching (2 Pet. 1:2, 3, 8; 2:20) which, as in the Pastorals, must become effective in a corresponding manner of life. It is interesting that gnosis has a good sense in 2 Pet. (cf. 1:5f; 3:18). This does to apply to ch. 2, where an anti-gnostic writing (Jude) has been incorporated which uses only epignosis (2:20) and epiginosko (2:21).”

Considering the great emphasis on “knowledge” in this short epistle, as evidence by the above opinions, it is rather amazing that Neyrey in his commentary appears to go to great lengths to avoid mentioning this subject at all. Instead, he spends his time trying to defend his thesis that it was the Epicurean philosophy which Peter was countering instead of the Gnostics or proto-Gnostics. Thus, it is not surprising that in his discussion of 1:3-11, Neyrey carefully defines almost all of the key virtues listed there except for “knowledge,” presumably since that does not happen to fit into his overall thesis.

ROMANS 12

That this chapter constitutes a cohesive passage within the epistle is demonstrated by the almost complete symmetry shown below:

                                                      Figure 1: The Structure of Romans 12

A. address to “brothers” (1a)

        B. the mercies and will of God (1b, 2b)

                C. do's and don'ts (2a)

                        D. good (2c)

--------

A'. address to “all of you” (3a)

                                E. humility (3b)

                                        F. gifts of the Spirit (4-8)

                        D'. evil and good (9)

                                        F'. fruit of the Spirit (10-16a)

                                E'. humility (16b)

                        D''. evil (2x) (17a)

                                        F''. works of the Spirit (17b-18)

--------

A''. address to “beloved” (19a)

        B''. the wrath of God (19b)

                C'. do's and don'ts (20)

                        D''. evil (2x) and good (21)

The approximate center of this arrangement appears in verses 10-16a, a passage which in itself has boundaries marked by the appearances of “one another” in verses 10 (2x) and 16a. Note that I have broken out Sections E and E' from their adjacent verses only in order to highlight the symmetry in the above figure. Black arrives at roughly the same conclusion regarding the center-rpoint of this chapter in another way by proposing the following mirror-image composition for verses 9-13:

        1. v. 9

                2. vv. 10-11a

                        3. v. 11b

                2'. v. 12

        1'. v. 13

But really, the main thing Black's proposal has in its favor is not any thematic symmetry but the fact that both 2 and 2' contain three clauses, all beginning with the Greek word te (“in”), in contrast to the two clauses in the center section 3 which start with to (“in”) instead.

In contrast to the order exhibited in Figure 1, Fitzmyer treats the whole of Romans 12-13 as “quite unsystematic and somewhat rambling.” In agreement with that negative assessment, Davidson and Martin state: “In this section [i.e. vv. 3-21] the apostle evidently has in mind relations with both Christians and pagans. His admonitions are given spontaneously without any attempt at logical presentation.” Finally, Morris is of the opinion that “the whole section is somewhat loosely structured.”

My own opinion is that Figure 1 demonstrates that, as in all his writings, Paul's literary organization skills are clearly in evidence here as well.

Note the number of correspondences between sections F, F', and F'':

        Exhibit humility – vv. 3, 10, and 16

        Show zeal (spoude) – vv. 8 and 11

        Live in harmony with others – vv. 16 and 18

        Give generously to others – vv. 8 and 13

        Be compassionate – vv. 8, 9, 10

        Treat your enemies well – vv. 14 and 17-21

Another test of the proposed structure in Figure 1 is to compare its section divisions with those found in scholarly commentaries and English translations. Of the fourteen such divisions I canvassed, all but two agreed that vv. 1-2 formed the first section and vv. 3-8 the second. However, from that point on, they began to differ greatly, as shown below:

    Verses 3-13; 14-21                        JB

    Verses 9-10; 11-16; 17-21            NEB

    Verses 9-13; 14-21                      Martin and Davidson, NRSV, NIV

    Verses 9-21                                  Allen, Phillips, Kasemann, Witmer, RSV, AB

    Verses 9:13; 14-16; 17-21 TEV, Murray

    Verses 9-10; 11-16; 17-21         Morris

The divergencies between the above demonstrate that attempts to sub-divide Scripture using only perceived thematic changes without taking into account any verbal parallels present is bound to be heavily influenced by subjective factors. In addition, one should always give precedence to arrangements which yield a symmetrical organization, since these appear throughout the Old and New Testament.

Finally, another noteworthy fact is that there are an uncommonly large number of similarities between Romans 12 and Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians and the Ephesians.

                        Figure 2: Parallels with Ephesians and the Letters to the Corinthians

Romans 12 (verse)                  Parallel Verses

1                                         I Cor. 6:20; II Cor. 1:3

2                                          I Cor. 2:15-16; 7:31; II Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:23; 5:10

3                                         I Cor. 4:6; Eph. 4:7

4                                         I Cor. 6:15; 12:5,12-14,25; Eph. 4:4, 16

5                                         I Cor. 10:17,33; 12:12-31; Eph. 1:23-24; 4:25; 5:30

6                                         I Cor. 7:7; 12:4,10-11; 13:2

7                                         I Cor. 12:5,28; 14:19,26; 16:15; II Cor. 4:1; 11:8; Eph. 4:11

8                                         II Cor. 8:2; 9:7,11; 11:3; Eph. 6:6

9                                         I Cor. 13:6-7; II Cor. 6:6; Eph. 5:2

12                                      Eph. 6:18

13                                      II Cor. 8:4; 9:13

16                                      I Cor. 1:10; II Cor. 13:11

17                                     I Cor. 13:5-6; II Cor. 8:21

 

RECENT ARTICLES ON NEW TESTAMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

I would like to highlight four articles in the Spring 2026 issue of Biblical Archaeology Today magazine dealing with New Testament issues.

Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch Mark Wilson rehearses the meeting of these two as given by Luke in Acts 8:26-40. The major issue here concerns the identity of the Eunuch. Since he lives in Ethiopia, what we would now call the Sudan, it is usually assumed that he is not Jewish, but should be considered a dark-skinned Gentile. That poses two major problems since this man has traveled a very long way from home just in order to worship at the Temple. However, he should have been well aware that neither Gentiles nor eunuchs could properly do that. The latter is prohibited in Deuteronomy 23:1. In addition, the former is unlikely since Acts 10-11 clearly states that Cornelius and his family were the first Gentile converts to Christianity.

Therefore Wilson proposes that:

1. “Eunuch” can also refer to high officials who were not necessarily castrated (see the early Greek version of Genesis 39:1).

2. This man must have been a proselyte to Judaism, or a Jew who was captured by the Nubians on one of their raids on southern Egypt.

These are by no means new ideas. Wilson himself cites the writings of Willimon dating to 1988. And Fitzmyer in his 1997 commentary on Acts echoes these ideas and adds to the first proposal above the Old Testament examples of Genesis 40:2 and I Samuel 8:15. Also, he suggests that perhaps even if the man had been castrated, this event could be considered the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 56:3-4 in which a time is envisioned in which even eunuchs can come into the Lord's house. Then concerning Proposal 2, he points out that the Ethiopic language is related to both Aramaic and Hebrew so that neither the eunuch not Philip would have had any trouble reading the passage in the “chariot.” That last word, both Wilson and Fitzmyer agree, should probably much better be translated as a carriage.

The Last Supper: How Should It Be Pictured? Matthew Grey attempts to make the case that Matthew and Mark's accounts differ considerably from those later versions written by Luke and John. He feels that this crucial meal was conducted just like the ordinary Jews of that time would have eaten a family meal together – namely, by rolling out mats on the floor and sitting cross-legged together over a shared pot of food and one drinking cup. Grey feels that this picture is consistent with the two earlier Gospel accounts whereas the later two versions seem to indicate the more formal Roman custom of dining in a triclinium style. This latter involved reclining around a low U-shaped table.

On the surface, his thesis might have something in favor of it since not only was Matthew in actual attendance (unlike Luke), but also it is highly likely that the dining room was owned by Mark's mother and that Mark was the anonymous young man who followed the party out of the room to the Garden of Gethsemene and who had to flee naked when the Roman soldiers tried to arrest him. On the other hand, Luke was definitely not there, and both Luke and John were writing more to a Gentile audience than a Jewish one. Therefore, both may have used terms and customs which would be more familiar to those reading their accounts.

The evidence Grey presents is, however, anything but persuasive. For one thing, he seems to ignore the great importance attached to the Paschal Feast compared to an ordinary meal. It could have certainly been carried out whenever possible in a more formal setting than that used for usual dining. Remember that few of the Apostles, and certainly not Jesus, had a dwelling in Jerusalem suitable for feeding the whole group. Secondly, the text indicates that this meal took place not in a private home, but in a special dining area probably available for different groups to rent out. Thus, it could easily have been fitted out for either the higher-class Jews who had begun to imitate Roman customs or the many Roman Gentiles in the city in the triclinium manner. Even Grey admits that evidence for such dining establishments has been found in Jerusalem dating to the time in question.

Secondly, Grey criticizes those modern translations of passages such as in Mark 14:18 who substitute “reclining at table and eating” for the more accurate “sitting and eating.” But, as other commentators point out, the Greek word in question (anakeimai) can be equally rendered as sitting” or “reclining.”

Lastly, the consistent evidence of Luke 22:24-26 and John 13:23-26 describes an event which would be physically impossible to carry out if everyone was seated cross-legged. So either Luke and John made up that passage out of thin air, or the seating was really in the triclinium style – take your pick .

The Jewish Revolt on Cyprus The recently departed Thomas Davis left behind an interesting article concerning the little known revolt against Rome occurring on this island during 115-117 AD during which Roman soldiers killed almost a quarter million inhabitants. The presence of such a large Jewish population on that island is confirmed not only by the large percentage of Jewish coins found there by archaeologists but also by the presence of multiple synagogues as stated in Acts 13:5

What is unusual, however, is that Rome carried out no such drastic measures against the Jews living in Syria and Asia Minor. Davis feels that this might have been due to the fact that those areas had been heavily evangelized, causing the Jews there to have been converted to Christianity to a large extent. See Acts 9:20-22; 13:43; and 14:1 for such evidence. He concludes: “Indeed, the lack of resistance in these diaspora communities may be our best evidence of Christian expansion in Syria and Asia Minor by the beginning of the second century.”

The 70 AD Siege of Jerusalem Gyozo Voros recaps some of the well-known evidence left behind, which witnesses to all the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by Roman forces. That included the 2015 uncovering of a number of circular stones launched from Roman catapults. Then in 2024, his Hungarian team combined a 19^th century topographical map of the area with Josephus' account in his Jewish War of the siege in order to draw a fairly accurate picture of where the Roman camps must have been located as they circled the city. And the final step was to utilize a twentieth-century German military photograph taken before more recent building projects had taken place there. Together, we now have a complete picture of what the area must have looked like during this crucial siege.