THE MANY FACES OF KING SOLOMON

The Old Testament History Books

I Kings The historical books of the Old Testament are very even-handed and realistic in the portrayals of their “heroes,” to the point where some scholars even deny that there are any true heroes in the Bible, save God Himself. Thus, when we come to the main events in King Solomon's life in I Kings we get about as close as we ever will get to a realistic, three-dimensional, warts-and-all view of what he was really like.

On the plus side, he is seen to have his priorities straight when he asks God to give him an understanding heart (I Kings 3:5-7). This is followed up by the well-known story of his wise decision given over the correct ownership of a baby disputed by two prostitutes (I Kings 3:16ff). Of course, the wisdom literature of the Old Testament is in large part attributed to him, as reflected in the comments given in I Kings 4. Finally, Solomon proved to be a financial genius who accumulated great wealth for Israel through advantageous trading partnerships, as reflected in I Kings 9-10.

But there is a very dark side also: Solomon had Adonijah killed when he requested the hand of David's last female companion Abishag (I Kings 2:25); he established tax districts in Israel and demanded exorbitant amounts of money from the people for support of his court (I Kings 4:7); he recruited citizens into forced labor for his building projects (I Kings 5:13ff); he handed over twenty cities in Galilee to his friend King Hiram (I Kings 9:10ff) to secure a loan from him; he lived a much more lavish lifestyle than his father David, as reflected in I Kings 10 while, as Hubbard says, “Israelites did not profit uniformly.” But, of course, his greatest flaw, as pointed out by Hubbard and many others, was the harem of foreign wives Solomon accumulated. “Marrying foreign wives was expedient politically, but not spiritually. The historian does not chide Solomon for sensuality but for disobedience to Israel's monotheistic ideal. Foreign marriages brought foreign religions, and the king compromised the convictions which he had expressed in his dedicatory prayer for the Temple (I Ki. viii. 23,27) by engaging in syncretistic worship to placate his wives.”

II Chronicles By carefully comparing the parallel accounts in I Kings and II Chronicles, we can see how the Chronicler has subtly changed Solomon's portrait. II Chronicles 2:17-18 has Solomon only forcing non-Jews living in the land into forced labor, not Jewish citizens; he deletes the fact that Solomon had married Pharaoh's daughter in I Kings 7:8; and the Chronicler throughout his account emphasizes the roles of the priests and Levites to a much greater extent than is found in I Kings. But by far the most telling omission made by the Chronicler is to totally delete the statements in I Kings 11 regarding Solomon's apostasy and the enemies God raised up against him in his final years. In other words, the Chronicler seems determined to whitewash the King's personal character simply because at least he built the Temple, all important to the welfare of the priests and Levites.

As Myers says, “The writer has in mind two things as he proceeds with his account of Solomon: (a) the fact that Yahweh had blessed him beyond parallel and (b) that his interest in the temple – religious institution – must not be obscured by other matters however important. That is why he disposes of the other matters pertaining to Solomon's kingdom so quickly.”

Old Testament Poetry Books

Psalm 127 Most people don't realize that one of the psalms is actually attributed to Solomon. It falls into two parts. In verses 1-2 we have the memorable statement: “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.” That could refer to the building of the Temple by Solomon. Also, it is noteworthy that the three-fold phrase “in vain” in these verses is even more familiar to readers as the repeated statement found in Ecclesiastes “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.”

Then in verses 3-5 we have a statement which would be even more at home in the Book of Proverbs: “Sons are a heritage from the LORD...like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one youth.”

Old Testament Wisdom Books

In keeping with the historical picture of Solomon as the epitome of a wise man (at least in his earlier years), he is listed as the putative author of the Wisdom Books. However, even conservative OT scholars admit that this may be a convenient fiction. Thus, it is a very complicated question as to whether Solomon was the author, historical subject, fictional subject of these books; a combination thereof; or whether these books were just written in his honor.

Proverbs Books I, II, and IV of this compilation each begin with the statement that they were proverbs of King Solomon, Son of David. So the conservative approach says there is no real reason to doubt that fact. But, unfortunately, even if that is true, there is really no biographical information regarding Solomon's life found in these sections. We must also keep in mind that Book III (chapters 23-24) contains a miscellany of material which does not necessarily originate from Solomon himself. And the same can certainly be said concerning Proverbs 30-31.

Ecclesiastes Although Solomon is never actually stated to be the author of this book, the opening words certainly were meant to imply that fact: “The words of the preacher [Qoheleth], the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” In the first nine chapters of this book we certainly get the kind of nuanced picture of Solomon that we found in II Kings. Qoheleth tries a number of different approaches to living a fulfilled life, but he admits after each each attempt that it is all “vanity and a striving after the wind.”

Nonetheless, the book is punctuated by more positive statements (which some scholars feel were added by pious scholars at a later date to make the book more acceptable to the reader) declaring that the author decided to just enjoy all the things God gives him on earth while remembering that they will all pass away and that there will come an inevitable time of judgment.

In that manner, as Seow concludes in an essay exhaustively comparing this book with similar royal proclamations of surrounding cultures, “Qohelet's imitation of the genre is poignant in its irony. In the end the text makes the point that none of the deeds – even the royal deeds that are assiduously preserved in memorials – really matters. For human beings, even kings, there is no immortality of any sort...The legendary acts, wealth, and wisdom of Solomon turned out not to have abiding significance after all. The genre of a royal inscription is utilized to make the point about the ephemerality of wisdom and human accomplishments.”

The Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) The role of the king in this book is even a harder question to answer than in the above two wisdom books since it is totally unclear if Solomon is supposed to be the author, is in fact the author, Solomon is masquerading as a poor man, he is the hero who appears in his love's eyes as glorious as Solomon, or whether he might be the hero's rival for the affections of the woman in the poems. Each commentator has his or her own take on the situation. Thus, it is impossible with any degree of certainty to say what kind of picture of Solomon we are meant to see here.

The Apocrypha

There is one book in the Apocryphal writings ascribed to Solomon. It is called simply Wisdom in the Catholic canon, and Wisdom of Solomon by Protestants. It is supposedly written in the first person by Solomon himself, although few scholars of any denomination would ascribe the book to him. As Dentan states, “For dramatic purposes it is written in the form of an essay by King Solomon, but the disguise is a transparent one, and it is doubtful that it was ever intended to be taken seriously. From early times, it was recognized as pseudonymous.”
Nevertheless, it is interesting for our present purposes as demonstrating another view of that early king of Israel, especially in the more supposedly autobiographical comments found in chapters 6-7. These chapters serve as an introduction to the extended poem in praise to wisdom which follows. Solomon begins by addressing other kings and judges of the earth and urging them to acquire wisdom above all else if they want to rule as wisely as he has. And then he warns them that if they don't do so, God's judgment will fall on them – good advice that the historical Solomon would have been well to heed himself.

Then in chapter 7, “Solomon” starts out by saying that he began as all kings do as a baby. However, he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. Again, unlike the historical figure, he states that he really cared very little for riches or prestige, but only for wisdom. Then he brags that (with God's grace) he came to know all there was concerning the physical world, including the “secret” things. This is quite at odds with the more humble picture of Solomon we get in the Book of Ecclesiastes.

The New Testament

Considering the great importance Solomon is given in the OT, it is perhaps surprising that, other than in genealogical listings, he is virtually ignored in the NT writings. In fact, though that king is featured in two of Jesus' sayings, they are both rather backhanded compliments to the greatness of Solomon since that figure is only used to highlight something which is even greater in comparison.

Matthew 6:29 // Luke 12:27

This is the famous saying of Christ in which he states that even Solomon in all his glory couldn't begin to compare to the sight of a field of wildflowers in bloom. “All in all...tradition remembered Solomon for the great prosperity which marked his reign, and for his 'wisdom,' rather than for his piety. When later kings were measured according to a spiritual standard, the yardstick of judgment was always the life of David (II Kings 16:2; 18:3; II Chron. 17:3; 28:1; 29:2; etc.) never that of Solomon.” (Hendricksen)

Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31

Similarly, these parallel passages allude to Solomon's great wisdom, but then put it into perspective by comparing it to the wisdom of Jesus. Geldenhuys explains: “The queen of the south (I Kings x) came from the uttermost ends of the world as known at that time, and spared no trouble or expense in order to listen to the wisdom of Solomon given to him by God, and she believed the report she had heard of him. But most of the Jews who saw Jesus, who is immeasurably greater than Solomon, in spite of all their privileges did not listen to Him with the desire for salvation, but rejected Him in their unbelief. So the queen of the south will on the day of judgment justly condemn them as people who neglected and abused such incomparable opportunities.”

Pseudepigraphical Writings

Finally, there were later books utilizing the name of Solomon, but with only the slightest pretense of being taken as genuine works of him. Two such spurious productions are described briefly below.

Psalms of Solomon

These share their greatest similarity with the authentic OT psalms, especially the psalms of petition for help in time of need. However, the contents reveal that the author is crying to God for aid at a time when Jerusalem is being attacked by her enemies due to the people's great sin, which has been hidden from Solomon. That alone should make one suspicious for two reasons: (1) In the Bible, Solomon was said to have knowledge of all things, including those completely hidden from sight, and (2) There was no such sacking of Jerusalem during Solomon's reign. Instead, it is the concensus opinion that this document was obviously written concerning the time of General Pompey's military actions in the Near East and Jerusalem in particular in 63 BC.

W.N. Guthrie notes, “These psalms had an important position and were widely circulated in the early Church. They are frequently referred to in the various codexes and histories of the first few centuries of the Christian Era.”

Odes of Solomon

Even more spurious are these poetic works, which have absolutely no connection with the historical Solomon. Only portions of this ancient document have been uncovered, and it appears to be an Aramaic translation of a Greek original. Its purely Christian origin is betrayed by its references to the Holy Spirit hovering over the Messiah, mention of the Incarnation, a chapter in which Christ Himself is the speaker, the virgin birth is confirmed, the sign of the cross appears, the Virgin Mary exhorts the people, there is an allusion to Christ walking on the water

 

CORRECTING ERRANT CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS

Let me introduce this subject by citing some appropriate words from Gordon Wenham relating to Numbers 3:40-51: “In the principle that the servant Levites redeem the first-born Israelites, Christians may see an anticipation of Jesus the great suffering servant who redeemed his people. This chapter's insistence that the Levites must prevent other Israelites from sinning by warning and, if necessary, killing encroachers anticipates New Testament challenges, particularly to elders to correct erring brethren.” Some examples of this latter duty are seen in Exodus 32:25-28 and Numbers 1:47-54. Wenham then lists a number of NT passages, all of which are given below with comments from various scholars. You will note that in these comments, I have purposely limited myself to those citations which help spell out both the real continuities and discontinuities of the NT teachings with those in the Old Testament.

Matthew 18:15ff “Matt 18:15-18 forms the well-known passage in church discipline. Here a procedure is outlined not just for confronting flagrant sinners, but for dealing with unresolved grievances...and if the sinner still refuses to change, then the church must proceed with putting that person out of fellowship (18:17b)...This punishment resembles the OT practice of cutting a person off from Israel's assembly (see, e.g. Gen. 17:4; Exod. 12:15,19; 30:33-38).” (Blomberg)

Acts 18:25-26 Marshall says in regard to these verses, “The 'way of the Lord' is OT language for the kind of conduct that the Lord requires of his people and hence for the teaching that describes it (Exod. 32:8; Deut. 5:33).”

Galatians 2:11ff Donald Guthrie says that “the food laws of Judaism were stringent, based on Levitical law. Segregation from Gentiles while eating was not because of any personal animosity toward the individual Gentiles concerned, but because of the fear of contamination by eating food forbidden under the law. It was, therefore, an essentially protective measure...But Christian liberty and fellowship were never intended to be shackled by ancient taboos...Peter's fear of the circumcision party seems to have outweighed entirely any consideration he may have had for the Gentile brethren...This is fitting reminder that Christian leadership always involves responsibility toward others...Paul considered a public remonstrance was essential, because of the basic principles involved.”

Galatians 6:1 Martyn: “Even though the reference ['a transgression of some sort'] is general – one might wonder how Paul thinks the Galatians will identify a specific transgression now they are no longer 'under the authority of the law' (5:18...). First he has already specified for them a list of representative effects of the Flesh. Now he emphasizes elements on that list that destroy community, such as a tendency constantly to compare oneself with others. Moreover, Paul thinks that the Spirit that builds community will provide criteria for identifying transgressions that destroy community.”

As to those who commit such transgressions, Martyn says, “The restoration, then, is to be completely devoid of lasting stigma. It is to be carried out with the gentleness that is one of the marks of the Spirit-led community...and also with circumspection. For as the next clause indicates, all are subject to missteps.”

1 Thessalonians 5:12-14

A few of Paul's many admonitions in these verses can be traced back to Old Testament teachings. For example, Malherbe states: “Paul's use of makrothymeisthe ('be patient') is influenced by Jewish usage. An insignificant word in nonbiblical Greek, it takes on a profound significance in the LXX [i.e. Greek Septuagint], where it describes God's relationship with his people. The basic passage in Exod 34:6 ('The Lord God, compassionate and merciful, patient [makrothymos] and full of pity')...becomes a refrain in later Jewish literature (e.g., Ps 102:8; Joel 2:13). In the Wisdom literature, it is also a quality of the wise man (Prov 16:32; 17:17; Sir 5:11).”

And regarding the phrase “encourage the fainthearted” in 5:14, Elias says, “Both encouragement and consolation may be included in this ministry. Again the problem comes at the point of determining the nature of the needs within this particular group. This word (literally, the small souled or simply the little people) appears nowhere else in the NT, but in the Septuagint it characterizes fearful or grieving people (Prov. 18:14; Isa. 35:4; 54:6)...Such people, the faint hearted, need the comfort of brothers and sisters who have caught on that, through Jesus' death and resurrection, believers can face both life and death with hope and joy (4:13-18; 5:10).”

I Timothy 5:19-20 “Probably as a result of heresy and its influence on some of the church leadership, Paul addresses the issue of due process in the examination and (if necessary) discipline of elders...Paul again draws on Mosaic legislation with a long history of acceptance in Judaism and in the church to ensure that due process is followed.” (Towner)

James 5:19-20 “It is debatable whether these verses refer to the restoration of a truly regenerate person or the conversion of an unregenerate one...Some have understood 'death' as a loss of communion or physical death (cf. 1C. 11:30), and there is no evidence that physical death was the regular punishment for backsliding.” (Carson) He goes on to explain that “the phrase 'cover a multitude of sins' in v. 20 “is evidently an allusion to Prov. 10:12, which is quoted more fully, but not exactly, in I Pet. 4:8...The meaning is that 'the soul is not merely saved out of death, not merely rescued from peril, but blessed, Ps. 32:1' (Knowling).”

DRUNKENNESS IN JEREMIAH

The figurative image of someone or something being drunken appears a number of times in the Book of Jeremiah. Below is what biblical commentators make of the passages in which it appears:

Jeremiah 13:13 Bright says that 'The scene here seems to be (as in Isa xxvii 7ff.) a drunken feast. The revelers use the proverb as a witticism; they are the jugs, and they mean to be filled with wine. Jeremiah's point is: Yahweh will fill them – with drunkenness (i.e. will rob them of ability to act), and will smash them like the jugs they joke about.”

Jeremiah 23:9 “Those under the influence of strong emotional or spiritual experiences are likened to those who are intoxicated...Jeremiah was 'like a drunken man, like a man overcome by wine, because of the Lord and his holy words' (Jer 23:9 NIV)...But by far the largest number of references to drunkenness occur in the Prophets as a metaphor of God's judgment. Babylon, Edom, Moab and Egypt are all caused to drink of the cup of Yahweh's judgment and to reel and stagger under the wine of God's wrath (Jer 25:15).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Jeremiah 25:27 “The cup, described as containing divine judgment and wrath, is one which they have no choice but to drink. To drink from a cup handed to you by the Lord means accepting your lot, a metaphor frequently used in prophetic writings to describe the bitter end of the wicked.” (DBI)

Jeremiah 46:10 Payne states that “while ch. 46 in its written form was composed in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which commenced in October 605 B.C. after the battle of Carchemesh (v. 2) between the forces of Egypt and Babylon, the prophet's opening verses 'view the scene on the eve of the battle'; and at this point Jeremiah says of the Egyptians, 'In the north by the river Euphrates they stumbled and have fallen' (v. 6), though it is the hand of Yahweh that will direct the human forces, when 'the sword shall drink its fill of their blood' (v. 19).” He further explains that this prophecy was fulfilled in 605 B.C. When Pharaoh Necho II was defeated by Nebuchadrezzar.

Unlike the other passages in this series, in this one the Hebrew root rwh is employed in place of the more common skr to convey the idea of drinking. Jenson and Olivier state: “The vb. appears only in OT poetic or prophetic books...its uses often carry metonymical significance, be satisfied or, refresh oneself, though the lexical sense seems limited to the meaning to be saturated (of things); sated (of beings) (cf. contexts where rwh parallels 'sb; eat fully, be satiated (usually of solid foods [Jer 31:14; 46:10...]...In Jer 46:10, the sword of Yahweh's retribution (against Egypt) is personified as eating (flesh) and drinking (blood) to the full...”

“Wine is mentioned frequently in Rev[elation]...In Rev. 14:10; 16:19; 19:15 it symbolizes the wrath of God, recalling OT imagery on wine and the cup of God's wrath (cf. Jer. 25:15f., 27f...).” (C. Brown)

Beale and McDonough similarly explain that in Revelation 17:6, “The metaphor of 'being drunk with blood' is developed from Isa. 34:5-7; 49:26; Jer. 46:10, where it describes God's judgment of the wicked. The imagery is applied now in reverse manner to show that Babylon will be punished by means of its own sin, as 16:6 reveals.”

Jeremiah 48:26 “The imagery of drunkenness is another well-known OT picture. It is often associated with drinking of the cup of Yahweh's wrath which makes men stagger...The picture of a drunken man doubled over by vomiting is both disgusting and likely to provoke derision. Once Moab had laughed at Israel as she drank the cup of Yahweh's wrath, regarding her as a laughingstock and treating her as a thief who has been punished. The tables are turned. Moab is an object of derision as she must flee from her cities and go live in places of refuge in the high mountains.” (Thompson)

Jeremiah 51:7 “The metaphor of drunkenness [in Revelation 14:8] comes from Jer 51:7-8...The intoxicating madness here appears to result from the terror of Babylon's oppressive measures (so also in Heb. 2:15-16). This is borne out by Jer. 25:15-16, which also is included in John's allusion...This imagery [i.e. in Rev. 14:10] is inspired especially by the wording of Ps. 75:8; Jer. 25:15; 51:7, all three of which are grouped together and applied by Jewish exegetical tradition to the wicked who will 'drink in the time to come'...” (Beale and McDonough)

Jeremiah 51:39

D.R. Jones comments on this verse by stating: “The idea of making drunk with the contents of the cup of wrath is taken up in 51:7. Babylon who made 'all the earth drunken' is to be subject to her own treatment...Repeated in v. 57.”

Jeremiah 51:57 D.R. Jones refers back to Jeremiah 51:39 “which must be the background to this verse, since it continues with the same 'sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake.'”

The historical background of this verse is explained by Biddle: “The doubts raised by the destruction of the Temple should be allayed by God's assurance of certain punishment for Babylon, which desecrated the holy places.”

 Thompson adds: “In terms of human personnel, when the destroyers marched on Babylon the warriors would be captured and their weapons of war destroyed. The symbolism of the cup of wrath of Yahweh appears again. Princes and wise men would be made drunk and governors, prophets, and warriors would sleep the sleep of death.”

Concluding Comments Jenson brings together several of the above passages to tie up this discussion: “In general, the ANE [i.e. Ancient Near Eastern] texts regard drunkenness as a relatively harmless matter and lack the perception of its moral and religious danger evident in many biblical passages...The prophets use drunkenness as a metaphor for the effects of God's wrath on Israel or the nations. Like a drunk, a judged nation is a figure of derision (Jer 48:26), helpless to defend itself (51:39, 57) and subject to irrational strife (13:12-14) and loss of control (Prov 20:1; Isa 19:14; 29:9; cf. Jer 23:9). God will compel the nations to experience the shame of drunkenness by making them drink the cup of wrath (Jer 25:27-29). The cup is given a historical identity and a fearful military reality in Jer 51:7, where Babylon is named the gold cup in the Lord's hand.”

I can think of two good reasons why Jeremiah 46:10 utilizes a different Hebrew word for the concept of drinking and drunkenness than the other seven passages do. In the first place, it is the only one of the eight passages in which the drunkenness or satiation does not refer to a human being.

But just as likely is the probability that a purposefully different word is employed so that there will only be seven passages in which the Hebrew root skr appears. That is significant since “seven” in the Bible is always symbolic of completion or perfection (Thus, the people mentioned in these verses will be absolutely and completely overcome.) I could cite several other OT and NT books in which this same phenomenon occurs.

 

JOSHUA 14

There is some some controversy as where to start this section since verses 13:32-33 act as a swing passage both summarizing the preceding land distributions and introducing the next major section which ends at 14:5 dealing with the position of the Levites.  We can recognize that division by the way it is bounded at both ends with similar statements:

        “But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance” (13:33)

        “But to the Levites he gave no inheritance among them” (14:3)

        “No portion was given the Levites in the land” (14:4)

The next major literary unit is similarly bracketed by another repeated phrase:

        “Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite” (14:6)

        “Caleb son of Jephunneh” (14:13)

        “Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenezzite” (14:14)

Note the literary similarity between these two sections in that the concluding phrases in each are repeated in adjacent verses. I should also point out that the final statement “And the land had rest from war” also concluded an earlier section in the book at 11:21-23.

The following more specific comments from the literature lean heavily on several anonymous articles in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.

Joshua 14:2 Howard says, “The land is seen as God's gift to Israel over and over again, especially in Deuteronomy. In Joshua, the concept appears over fifty times. As a gift of God, it never belongs absolutely to Israel: it belongs to God...The dividing of the land by lot further indicates that it was at God's disposal (Num. 26:55-56; Josh. 14:2; 18:1-10)...”

Younger notes that, “Ironically, it was the fear of these very Anakim that caused Israel's disobedience and failure at Kadesh-barnea according to Num. 13:28 and Deuteronomy 1.28.”

Joshua 14:3-4 Woudstra: “Starting from the basic figure of the twelve-tribe arrangement, these verses explain the relationship between the 2-1/2 tribes east of the Jordan and the 9-1/2 west of the river. Apparently it was necessary to make even more clear that which was obvious from the preceding chapter (13:7-8). Special concern is shown to emphasize that the tribes on the east side of the Jordan indeed did belong to Israel.”

Joshua 14:7 Gray explains that “forty is the conventional indefinite number in Semitic folklore. It indicates a man in his prime...Caleb's age at this point is given as eighty-five (v. 10).”

Joshua 14:8 “The image of melting is most commonly used in the Bible to describe the effects of fear...The result of this breakdown is often terror: 'our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man' (Josh 2:11 NASB; cf. Josh 5:1; 7:5; 14:8...).” (DBI)

Joshua 14:9 DBI: “Ideally, parents...provide a homeland (Josh 14:9; Jer 30:20; Acts 7:5). It is their great sense of responsibility that prompts their continued quest for the Promised Land.” One might easily extend that principle today in order to state that it is a parent's grave responsibility to prepare their children for their eventual Heavenly Home.

“In ancient Near Eastern iconography we find images of enemies under a footstool, beneath the feet of the reigning king...This image seems to carry the connotation of shaming the enemy (to direct the soles of the foot toward someone was a shaming action) and treading on them in a manner that lays claim to them, perhaps analogous to walking over their territory (Josh 1:3; 14:9; Ps 8:6).” (DBI)

Joshua 14:10 See comment on v. 7.

Joshua 14:11 “Several biblical characters are exceptions to these transformations [accompanying old age] and become powerful images:...Moses and Caleb, who remain strong in old age (Deut 34:7; Josh 14:11). But these are exceptions, and the biblical norm is that one's later years are marked by decline.” (DBI)

Another author in that same source states that “the basic rhythm of life is encapsulated in a biblical merism (the rhetorical device of naming opposites with the implication that everything between them is also included) that speaks of 'going out' and 'coming in' (Josh 14:11, etc).”

Joshua 14:12-13 Butler says, “The Anakim are connected to the primeval wicked giants, the Nephilim (Num 13:33; cf. Gen 6:4...). They are particularly tied to Hebron (Num 13:22,28). Here is another step on the way to fulfillment of the divine promise to destroy these enemies (Deut 9:2...). For Caleb that destruction depends only on the divine promise...The blessing [in v. 13] represents a promise for steady continued success over a long period of time, not just in one particular moment or event...In this case the blessing is for the work of Caleb and his descendants in Hebron.” As Paul puts it in Romans 8:31, “If God is with us, who is against us.”

Joshua 14:14 “Also ironically [see comment on v. 2 above], this prime example of Judahite success is accomplished by a non-Israelite: Caleb is a Kenizzite (14:14) who is, however, ultimately incorporated into Judah's genealogy (1 Chr 2:9,18).” (Younger)

Joshua 14:15 “The idea of rest for the entire nation from their enemies is found in such passages as Deuteronomy 12:10 and 25:19, and it is echoed in summarizing passages in Joshua 21:44 and 23:1. In two places, we read that the land itself had rest from war (11:23; 14:15; cf. Deut 12:9-10; 25:19; 2 Sam. 7:1,11; 1 Kings 8:56). That anticipates the same idea repeated several times in Judges: 'And the land had rest____years” (3:11; 3:30; 5:31; 8:28).” (Howard)

COLOSSIANS 4:7-17

These verses constitute the final greetings of Paul's letter. As such, they might be expected to yield little theological importance or other food for thought. However, there are a few gems hidden in these verses which are worth exploring. The first thing to point out is the way these eleven verses are bound together by an equal number of repeated words and related concepts. I have graphed them visually below:

                                            Figure 1: Repetition in Colossians 4:4-17

1. make known to you about me (7a)

            2. beloved brother (7b)

                        3. faithful (7c)

                                    4. minister (7d)

                                                5. slave (7e)

                                                        6. in the Lord (7e)

1'. make known concerning us (8a)

                                                                7. comfort you (8b)

                        3. faithful (9a)

            2'. beloved brother (9b)

                                                                            8. one of you (9c)

1''. make known to you (9d)

                                                                7'. comfort (11)

                                                                            8'. one of you (12a)

                                                5'. slave (12b)

            2''. beloved physician (14)

            2'''. brothers (15)

                                    4'. ministry (17a)

                                                            6'. in the Lord (17b)

As you can see above there is a certain degree of symmetry concerning these key words so that (a) items 2-6 appear at the start and end of this passage and (b) 7 and 8 are concentrated within verses 8-12 near the center. In addition to the vocabulary highlighted in Figure 1, the phrase “greet(s) you” appears four times in vv. 10-14, and “read” is found three times within v. 16. This is obviously more than a mere random listing of people who are to be greeted.

Colossians 4:7

Barth and Blanke address the phrase 'concern me' in the following way: “The Greek expression ta kat eme (literally: that according to me) is a customary formula. In Phil 1:12, it is used in a context similar to the one in Col[ossians]. Here, Paul introduces with these words the details of how his captivity has served the advancement of the gospel. Here in Col, he presumably has something similar in mind. The information will reach the Colossians through Tychicus, the conveyor of the epistle.” From this we can deduce Paul was not concerned about his own welfare in prison, but just in the manner God had used his circumstances to reach others for the Gospel.

Colossians 4:7-8 There is a very close correspondence between these verses and Ephesians 6:21-22, with a number of words in exact agreement. “It certainly suggests that the author of [Colossians] copied from [Ephesians.] It is very possible that both epistles were written at the same time or that the author still had the first letter while he was penning the other. It may well be that if Paul were the author of both epistles, as is argued in this commentary, Tychicus took both letters with him when he went to Asia Minor.” (Hoehner) From that comment, you may be surprised to learn that there is even the slightest doubt concerning Pauline authorship; but if so, you are probably not very well acquainted with liberal biblical scholarship.

Colossians 4:9

“Paul urged the church to accept Onesimus. This became a test case for the instructions Paul issued regarding slaves and masters (3:22-4:1) and of whether Christianity could triumph over social and economic distinctions.” (Melick)

Colossians 4:10-11

Seitz says, “Mark is presumably the John Mark of the checkered career we read about in Acts 12:24-25 and 15:37-39. A reconciliation has presumably taken place (2 Tim. 4:11). He ends up with a ministry in Rome according to 1 Pet. 5:13. Mark may well have written his gospel in Rome. Should he pass through Colossae, they are to greet him warmly and receive him.” This favorable mention of Mark helps us flesh out the details of his life and demonstrates not only the fact that God gives believers a second chance once they have fallen, but also shows Paul's forgiving nature.

Colossians 4:10-14 “Some have inferred from the listing of Luke's name separately from 'those of the circumcision' that Luke was a Gentile.” That may well be true, but D.L. Allen, in his book Lukan Authorship of Hebrews spends several pages discussing the various reasons against that common supposition.

Colossians 4:14 “In Col 4:14, Demas...is probably the same as the one named here [Philemon 24], and in Tim 4:10, where he is said to have deserted Paul.” It is reported by two early church leaders, Epiphanius and Photius of Constantinople, that he became a pagan priest. (Fitzmyer) This demonstrates that not all early Christian leaders remained “faithful” to the Gospel.

We can probably all point to Christian pastors who have abandoned the ministry for one reason or another, and sometimes went in the completely opposite direction. I can personally cite six such examples just in the few churches I have attended over the years. We need to keep in mind how stressful and filled with temptation such a position can be, and try to help our pastors rather than causing more difficulties for them than they already have.

Colossians 4:15-16

Seitz holds along with Sumney that v. 16 “provides the clearest evidence for the intentional distribution of Pauline letters beyond their original addresses.” Thus it begins the pattern in which those who take the Bible seriously today are encouraged to take writings originally intended for a relatively narrow audience and search for underlying principles that still have current applicability in our historical context.

Colossians 4:16 The early Reformation leader “Knox...argues strongly for the identification of [the Letter to] Philemon with 'the letter from Laodicea.'” (Orr and Walther). However, Maclean states that “some identify it with Ephesians”

We seem to all have a penchant for wanting to know everything revealed to or written by prominent biblical personages. But keep in mind the injunction against desiring to delve into hidden and secret things, and remember what John said toward the end of his Gospel: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31) Those were the primary goals that the inspired authors of the New Testament had in mind, not to “tickle our ears” with extraneous facts designed to put us in more in the know than those ignorant people around us.

Colossians 4:17

Concerning this verse, Barth and Blanke ask why Archippus was not addressed directly by Paul. They suggest that perhaps he wanted “to avoid the appearance of acting as a 'grand overseer'...Thus the instructions given to the community are intended to have the members teach and exhort each other to perform good deeds, based on his words in 3:16.” If that supposition is true, how different that attitude of Paul's was compared to those church pastors today who continuously engage in self-glorification and rule their congregations with an iron fist.

Conclusion

The above represent only the tip of the iceberg as to the spiritual messages found in this passage of Scripture, even where we might least expect them.

EPHESIANS 2:17-18

The whole of Ephesians 2:11-22 shows evidence of purposeful arrangement, which can be seen by considering the almost complete symmetry exhibited by all its repeated words in the order in which they appear (Figure 1). Hoehner rejects this scheme because he feels it is too complicated with its overall chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) symmetry coupled with parallel arrangements such as those shown by the repetition within this section of both “peace-both groups-hostility” and “strangers and aliens-Christ Jesus” in those same orders. Apparently Hoehner is not at all familiar with the fact that such mixtures appear throughout the Old and New Testaments, as I have amply demonstrated in many of my previous posts.

                                   Figure 1: Repeated Words in Ephesians 2:11-22

in the flesh (2x) (v. 11)

           aliens and strangers (v. 12)

                        Christ Jesus (v. 13a)

                                   far off...near (v. 13b)

                                                peace (v. 14a)

                                                           both groups (v. 14b)

                                                                        hostility (v. 14c)

                                                peace (v. 15)

                                                            both groups (v. 16b)

                                                                        hostility (v. 16c)

                                                peace (v. 17a)

                                    far off (v. 17b)

                                                peace (v. 17c)

                                    near (v. 17d)

            strangers and aliens (v. 19)

                        Christ Jesus (v. 20)

in the Spirit (v. 22)

Before proceeding any further, it is valuable to compare the different renderings of the specific verses in question:

Starting with the fairly literal translation of the NRSV, we read, “So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father.”

Then there is Living Bible paraphrase to consider: “And he has brought this Good News of peace to you Gentiles who were very far away from him, and to us Jews who were near. Now all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, may come to God the Father with the Holy Spirit's help because of what Christ had done for us.”

The “he” and “him” in these verses refers, of course, to Christ, as the Living Bible makes more clear. Thus, in v. 18 all three members of the Trinity appear to basically demonstrate one way in which they all work together. The Living Bible also goes ahead with the assumption that this word of peace is equated with the Gospel message itself.

With that general background, we can now consider what various commentators have to say regarding verses 17-18 in particular.

Ephesians 2:17

Maclean and others note two phrases in this verse which may have been derived from passages in Isaiah. They are “proclaimed peace” (see Isaiah 52:7) and “far off...near” (see Isaiah 57:19).

Thielman elaborates on this correspondence: “Paul has skillfully combined the wording of these two texts to make the double peace of 57:19 the object of the herald's glad proclamation in 57:7. In addition, he has used separately each member of Isaiah's poetic doubling of the term 'peace,' pairing one use with the proclamation of good news to those far away and the other use with the proclamation of good news to those nearby...Since Paul also uses the terms 'far' and 'near' in 2:13 to describe the inclusion of his Gentile readers in the people of God, many interpreters believe that he was already thinking of Isa. 57:19 there before he made more explicit reference to it in 2:17.”

“One of the striking things to emerge from a study of Paul's letters is his strong conviction that the exalted Christ was actually involved in his ministry...It was the voice of Christ himself that was heard through the proclamation of the apostle and his colleagues (2 Cor 5:20; cf. Eph 2:17).” (Kruse)

Porter: “'The pacification carried out by Jesus Christ is an act of creation' (Barth) whereby the two are made into something entirely new...This act of reconciliation is defined in both positive and negative terms. Reconciliation consists of making peace and killing animosity...The positive message forms the basis of the proclamation of peace to all, both those far and near (Eph 2:17; cf. 6:15, see also Col 1:18-22). The enmity which calls for reconciliation is defined in terms of two human groups, Jews and Gentiles. In that the law excluded Gentiles, it was the source of their enmity. The animosity is said to be 'killed' by Christ's work on the cross...”

“The hostility of Jew and Gentile appeared to be insurmountable. Dissevering institutions relative to ritual pollution and civil ordinances, the confinement of temple-worship to the Holy City and its concomitant enactments, repelled outsiders no less that the warning notice: 'trespassers will be prosecuted'. Elements so incongruous could never be amalgamated save in the alembic [i.e. an ancient distillation device] of a new birth, nor could the baser materials in question be melted down save in the crucible of the cross.” (Simpson)

Quoting Marcus Barth, “Eph 2:17 introduces a novel element into the context: the public announcement. The peace proclamation made by Christ is the overwhelming alternative to the hostile name-calling mentioned in 2:11. The proclamation of peace is essential to peace itself, and makes it real. The maker and the proclaimer of peace are one and the same person: it is Christ's privilege to be both the causative and the cognitive agent of peace.”

Ephesians 2:18

Hunter states: “The Pauline understanding of Christian prayer places major emphasis on the believer's relationship with, and personal access to God as Father, and is grounded solely in the finished work of Christ...This opportunity transcends race and culture. Through Christ, Jew and Gentile 'both have access to the Father by one Spirit' (Eph 2:18).'”

“Christ's work of reconciliation is stressed (Eph 2:16) with the implication that believers now have access to God, their Father (Eph 2:18; 3:12).” (Arnold)

Fung says that “in Ephesians 4:4 the 'one body' vitalized by the 'one spirit' (who in Eph 2:18 creates the unity of the 'one body' of Jewish and Gentile believers) is separate from the 'one Lord' of Ephesians 4:5 and is simply a description of the Christian community as a unity. This unity of the body supplies the motivation for keeping the unity of the Spirit (Eph 4:3).”

Simpson phrases this concept rather strikingly: “The binding of the living epistles varies, but not their contents.”

The Holy Spirit “aids believers in their prayers, directing them to pray properly (Rom 8:26). At the same time the Spirit himself prays on behalf of those he indwells (Rom 8:27). In Ephesians also 'access' to God in prayer is granted by the Spirit (Eph 2:18), and this praying in the Spirit is urged on believers as a constant practice (Eph 6:18).” (Paige)

Guthrie and Martin: “The 'spiritual' essence of Paul's religion is something he assumes without much argumentation (e.g. Phil 3:3 and his teachings on the church as the dwelling place of God in the Spirit in 1 Cor 3:16; cf. Eph 2:18-21)...there are a few passages where trinitarian formulae are used. The passages in view are such as 1 Corinthians 12:3-7; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2:18; 4:4-6; Titus 3:4-6, and are conceivably and suggestively linked with a baptismal and/or initiatory creed.”

THE PROPHET AGABUS (ACTS 11:27-30; ACTS 21:7-14)

The Bible is filled with the names of minor characters, one of whom is Agabus who twice appears seemingly out of nowhere with a message from God. The first of these occasions is in Acts 11 and the second occurs in Acts 21. In addition, Grogan mentions that a much later church tradition included Agabus among those sent out in Acts10:1 and taught that he was eventually martyred.

Beale discusses one of the key terms found in the first two of these references: “symaino can overlay with the more general and abstract idea of 'make known' in the sense of 'indicate,' 'declare,' 'be manifest.' But its more concrete and at least equally common sense is 'show by a sign'...Both the abstract and concrete senses are found in the LXX [i.e. Septuagint]. Of its five other NT occurrences [in addition to Revelation 1:1], two have the sense of 'make known' (Acts 11:18; 25:27), though one (Acts 11:28) may have the nuance of symbolic information (if it is parallel with the prophetic mode of symbolic revelation by the same prophet in Acts 21:10-11)...”

Acts 11:27 We may rightly wonder where Agabus came from. S.E. Johnson points out that although there are few specifically named prophets in the NT “Prophets were numerous in the early church (see...1 Cor. 12:28-29).”

“Very early in the history of the church, people known as prophets are recognized and given leadership in the believing community. We find some prophets having an itinerant ministry (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10) while others function as part of the ongoing leadership of the congregation (Acts 13:1; 15:22, 32).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

And another anonymous article in DBI states: “The term prophet appears fourteen other times [in addition to naming specific prophets] in the NT in reference to contemporary prophets, usually in the plural, suggesting that prophecy was a common part of the experiences of early Christians.”

But in marked contrast to the Old Testament prophets, “The prophets of the [NT] community do not make any independent contribution to the prophecy; their function is to teach (cf. the teaching of the false prophetess in Rev. 2:24)...The evidence of Acts 11:28 and 21:11 does not support the idea of the prophets producing utterances in the name of the historical Jesus; rather Agabus speaks here by the Spirit.” (C. Brown)

Acts 11:28 This famine is confirmed in Josephus' Antiquities 20:2, where he states that 46-47 AD was

 the worst for Jerusalem. Although the famine was not widespread, such inclusive language as “all the

 world” is used elsewhere in Acts. That means that the famine was probably after Herod's death in 44

 AD, not before, thus demonstrating that the order of events in the Bible is not always chronological,

but may be according to a literary scheme. Thus, we can propose the symmetrical arrangement below:

    A. Mission of mercy to Jerusalem Church (11:27-30)

            B. Herod's persecution (12:1-4)

                    C. Church prays for Peter's release (12:5)

                            D. Angel releases Peter (12:6-11)

                    C'. Peter appears to the church (12:12-17)

            B'. Herod's fate (12:18-23)

    A'. Mission of mercy concluded (12:24-25)

The difficult of pinning down the exact chronology of this event is explained by Bruce: “It is not clear 

how long before the famine Agabus's prediction was made. Probably the Antiochene Christians set 

aside money systematically until the time of need actually came...”

Acts 11:29-30 “The prophecy of Agabus stirred up loving generosity among the saints in Antioch, who 

knew that the Judean brethren would be the chief sufferers, so that each gave according to his ability – a

principle afterward to be established on a wider scale in 2 C. 8:9.” (Trencherd)

Acts 21:10 “Barrrett...refers to and rightly rejects A. Ehrhardt's hypothesis that Agabus followed Paul 

like Elisha follows Elijah while the latter predicts his imminent departure.” (Marshall)

Acts 21:11 Marshall points to the Old Testament prophets who also often acted symbolically and cites 

such texts as I Kings 11:19-40; Isaiah 8:1-4; 20:1-2; Jeremiah 13:1-11; 19:10-13; and Ezekiel 4-5, but 

notes that “there is no precise parallel to his specific action (the closest is Jeremiah wearing a yoke on 

his own neck to symbolize subjection to Nebuchadnezzar [Jer. 27]).”

Selter agrees with this assessment and adds: “In Acts 21:11 Agabus (like the prophets of the OT; cf. Isa.

 20:21, Jer. 13:1ff.) carried out a symbolic action with Paul's girdle (a long cloth worn about the waist), 

to indicate the coming arrest of Paul. 'The accompanying word of interpretation Thus says the Holy 

Spirit! corresponds to the OT Thus says Yahweh!...”

“Luke's concern...is not so much with the fulfillment of Agabus' prophecy as with the generous 

response of Antioch's church...They gave each according to his ability, just as the Jerusalem believers 

had previously distributed 'to anyone as he had need' (2:4; 4:35). I have often wondered if Marx knew 

these two passages and bracketed them in his mind.” (Stott) It would not be at all unlikely since early 

Marxism has often been rightly labeled by historians as a Christian heresy.

Acts 21:11-12 Some feel that Paul was going against the clear prophecy he was given by going on to 

Jerusalem. However, Harris explains: “It is noteworthy that Agabus's subsequent prophecy at Caesarea 

(Acts 21:11) that predicts Paul's suffering in Jerusalem and begins 'Thus says the Holy Spirit' does not 

include an injunction or exhortation to Paul not to go to Jerusalem.” He suggests that verse 12 “may be 

paraphrased thus: 'Prompted by a prediction of the Spirit they told Paul not to go to Jerusalem.'”

Acts 21:13 Stott notes that Paul's words in this verse “are almost identical with Peter's: 'Lord, I am 

ready to go with you to prison and to death.' The difference was that in the event Peter had faltered and 

failed (though in the end he suffered and died for Christ), whereas Paul was true to his word.”

LUKE 14:1-6

These verses contain both a controversy story and a healing, and are unique to Luke. Concerning the passage as a whole, we have the following comments from scholars:

Soards: “This healing story forms the second part of a balanced pair with the foregoing account of Jesus' healing the crippled woman (13:1-16), exhibiting Luke's concern to show the inclusive nature of Jesus' ministry.”

Pohl: “The Gospel of Luke is particularly rich with images of Jesus' experiences of hospitality...He is frequently a guest in the homes of Pharisees (Luke 7:36-50; 14:1-21)...These shared meals provide an important setting for his teachings on divine and human hospitality.”

Luke 14:1-2

Marshall describes the background to this passage: “The situation indicated is doubtless a meal after the service in the synagogue (cf. 7:36; 11:37)...by now the Pharisees were suspicious of Jesus and looking for evidence against him, and it is possible that the man [with dropsy] was planted there as a trap for him.”

Luke 14:2

Regarding dropsy (v. 2), Fitzmyer explains the medical condition as follows: “suffering from edema, an abnormal accumulation of serous fluid in connective tissues or cavities of the body accompanied by swelling, distention, or defective circulation. It is usually symptomatic of more serious problems.” Note that Jesus will alleviate the man's symptoms as an indication that he had also removed the underlying medical cause.

Luke 14:3

Jesus' question showed that He knew that they wanted to trip him up, and in addition the question placed them in a difficult position – for if they answered that it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day this would give him the right to continue His Sabbath healings. On the other hand, they could not venture to declare that it was unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, especially in view of the distress of the sick man, visible to all.” (Geldenhuys)

I would add that this episode and others imply strongly that Jesus' opponents knew that He had the power to heal all along and didn't seem to reflect on what that meant concerning the authority of His teachings as well.

Another glaring omission committed by the Pharisees was in purposely ignoring the Old Testament teachings on the subject. As Fitzmyer explains, “The attitude presupposed by Jesus in that second question reflects Deut 22:4, the Mosaic injunction to help a brother whose ox or ass falls by the way.”

As Ellis says, “The churchmen display a thoroughly false standard of values. Not only are they hard-hearted toward the sick man (3f.) but both guests (7) and host (12) are status-seekers and social climbers. The principles (5, 10, 13) that Jesus enunciates were known and approved by all. The sting of his words is their utter candor...He undresses their concealed and half-forgotten motives and lays them naked on the dinner table. Most embarrassingly, he applies the principles to the churchmen's relation to God.”

Luke 14:4

Fitzmyer explains that 'they kept silent' indicates ”they would not commit themselves. But to be silent is to agree (especially when legal matters are the issue).”

Luke 14:5

There is a minor textual problem concerning this verse. Comfort notes that if you have a son or ox “is the original wording according to five early MSS [i.e. manuscripts]...Three variants are 'donkey or ox.., 'sheep or ox'...and foal of a donkey or ox'...The variants are scribal attempts to have a pair of animals rather than a human paired with an animal.”

“Jesus highlights their [i.e. oxen's] value when he poignantly equates the Pharisees' sabbath care of their oxen with his own sabbath healing of a crippled woman and a man with dropsy (Lk 13:15; 14:5).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Luke 14:6

“Conscious of modernity's anthropocentrism, Christians are noticing Jesus' background assertion that God attends to the death of each sparrow (Matt. 10:29). And they are noticing that Jesus rightly presumes that even his theological opponents will not dare to deny that it is good to break the Sabbath in order to rescue a sheep or an ox from a pit (Matt. 12:11; Luke 14:5).” (Greenway)

Fitzmyer alludes back to v. 4 in which the Pharisees could find no answer to Jesus' question and states, “The reaction [in v. 6] is thus stronger than in v. 4. It is assumed that Jesus' words have reduced his observers to silence. In effect they agree that they would do exactly what he intimated they would.”

Concluding Update

Craddock notes, “It is significant that following the Jerusalem conference, which Luke reports in Acts 15, the Gentile churches are asked to show deference to Judaism only in matters of idolatry, unchastity and foods (Acts 15:20). No mention is made of the Sabbath. Either the matter had already been settled, or it was not a critical issue, or it was left to the convictions of different Christian communities to observe or not observe the Sabbath...One suspects, however, in Luke's time and place, that...Sabbath observance still generated a great deal of tension.”

As a result of such actions and teachings of Jesus, “the extreme (and potentially legalistic) forms of refraining from work that prevailed under the law are softened and set within the context of God's new redemptive work...Given this NT modification we are left with a picture of the sabbath as a day of doing good as well as a day of worship and cessation from ordinary work.” (DBI)

NEHEMIAH 13

This chapter describes a low point in the spiritual life of the early returnees to Jerusalem from Persian captivity. It occurred when Nehemiah had left to live there for a 12-year period. When he did return to Jerusalem in 433 BC to check up on the returnees, he found the truth of the old saying “When the cat's away, the mice will play.” He immediately noticed a number of abuses taking place and wasted no time trying to correct them. These included the following behaviors unacceptable to God:

Nehemiah 13:1-3 As a sort of prelude to this section, the people were read the Pentateuch including the passage in which they were told in no uncertain terms that they were to separate themselves from the Ammonites and Moabites.

Nehemiah 13:4-9 The priest Eliashib had turned over a large chamber in the temple designated for storage of food and drink to be used in the offerings to his buddy Tobiah for his personal use.

This move was wrong for two major reasons. In the first place, the fact that this store room was practically empty indicated that the Jews had been horribly negligent in bringing in the required tithes and offerings to the temple.

Secondly, there is a good chance that this Tobiah was the personage mentioned earlier in the Book of Nehemiah. If so, then as J.S. Wright says, “In Ne. 11. 10 he is called “the servant, the Ammonite'. He may have been a freed slave who rose to a position of influence in Ammon, perhaps even governor of the province. He was probably the ancestor of the Tobiads who governed Ammon for generations after his time, as attested in the 3^rd-century-BC Zeno papyri...If Ez. iv. 7-23 is dated shortly before the coming of Nehemiah Tobiah may well be identified with Tabeel of Ezr. iv. 7.”

In any case, it was totally inappropriate for Eliashib to hand over temple property for an Ammonite's exclusive use. I remember that at one church I attended for years, membership had dropped so low that we no longer had as much need for the large annex we had built. So the leaders of the church cast around to see if we could rent it out to help support our own congregation financially. There were several organizations interested in utilizing our facility during the times we weren't, but the wise decision was that any such organization, especially a religious group, should have goals consistent with our own.

Nehemiah 13:10-14 The Levites who served in the temple had not received the portion of the offerings due to them and so were forced to take on additional work in the field to feed themselves and their families.

It is of interest that three times in this chapter Nehemiah asks God to remember him for his good deeds. As Allen explains, “Nehemiah, in a series of prayers that punctuate his memoirs, requested that his work might stand as a memorial to his service for God and his fellow Jews. Evidently he had enemies who gave him no credit for his dedicated labors and sought to undo them. So he committed to God both his own works (Neh 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31) and the opposition he had encountered (6:14; 13:29).”

But one commentator notes that “Nehemiah,who was not too modest to remind God of his own integrity, comments favorably on those whom he trusted to handle substantial quantities of goods and money (Neh 13:13).”

Perhaps the lesson to us here is that we have no need to either blow our own horn or to personally punish our enemies, but to turn both wholly over to God to deal with.

Numbers 13:15-22 All the rules forbidding work on the Sabbath had been ignored.

We should certainly be reminded here of the later actions of Jesus in casting out the money changers in the temple and others who had turned the Court of the Gentiles into a noisy marketplace where it was impossible to worship.

Short summarizes Nehemiah's measures to combat these abuses: “Nehemiah rebuked them. He ordered also that the main city gates should be kept closed from the evening when the sabbath began till the following evening, and as to certain smaller gates beside them which we have to assume remained open, Nehemiah appointed some of his servants to stand near them so as to ensure that no burden was brought into the city on the sabbath. There were certain merchants, however, who tried to break Nehemiah's blockade by setting up their stalls outside Jerusalem; but Nehemiah discovered them and threatened them with arrest; so they decided not to try this again.”

Various churches today have attempted to apply this principle as well as that of Jesus casting out the money-changers. I know that all of the congregations I have attended were quite adamant against such practices as holding Bingo games at church or similar fund-raising techniques often practiced by other denominations. But on the other hand, most of them saw nothing at all wrong with letting a guest speaker set up a booth on the way out of the church building where he could sell his books and other literature to those exiting the service.

Numbers 13:23-29 The strictures against Jews intermarrying with pagan women were similarly ignored, even by those in influential positions. As Dearman says, “Moabite wives were a contributing factor to the problem of synchretism [i.e., combining several incompatible religious systems together] in and around postexilic Jerusalem (Ezra 9:15; Neh. 13:23).”

These verses act as a sort of conclusion to the chapter in that they return to the strictures against associating with foreign nations (especially Ammon and Moab) that began the chapter in verses 1-3.

As a sad point in their history, Nehemiah points as an object lesson to the fact that even wise King Solomon was led astray by the foreign women he had married. If even he could not stand up to such pagan influences, how much more would the rank-and-file Israelites be unable to combat the pagan influences of their non-Israelite wives!

“Nehemiah, a layman, was able to cooperate with his contemporary Ezra, the scribe and priest, in spite of the fact that these two leaders were of entirely different temperaments. As one example, in reaction to the problem of mixed marriages, Ezra plucked out his own hair (Ezra 9:3), whereas Nehemiah plucked out the hair of the offenders (Neh 13:25)!”

The take-home lesson for us here is that it takes all sorts of personalities to make up a well-rounded congregation. This is in stark contrast to one church I attended where for a while the common buzzword was “likemindedness.” By that, those who spouted out this doctrine meant that no individual opinions should differ in any way with the official and unofficial beliefs and practices of that congregation. That not only included absolute adherence to all twenty or more specific doctrinal statements of the church, but also such unwritten but understood things such as one's preferred political party. Because of that attitude, I am afraid that I fell afoul of the elders more than once and was only allowed to continue teaching there after arguments advanced in my favor by two of the associate pastors, who were much more enlightened and theologically sound than anyone on the elder board, almost all of whom were chosen on the basic of their supposed business acumen.

In verse 29, Nehemiah has a completely different kind of remembering in mind when he asks God to remember the deeds of those who had “defiled the priesthood, the covenant of the priests and the Levites.”

Numbers 13:30-31 As a coda to Numbers 13, Nehemiah draws up a series of regulations for both the priests and Levites in order to clearly define their duties.

As Eskenazi explains, “The purification of the priesthood and Temple administration was the most difficult and consequential task because of the status of the opposing priests. Therefore, Nehemiah presents restoring order and sanctity to the worship system as the crown of his achievement.”

Yamauchi aptly summarizes Nehemiah's life: “His motive throughout his career was to please and serve his divine Sovereign. His only reward would be God's approbation. He was in many ways a model leader.”