THE NUMBER "FOUR" IN THE BIBLE

 

“Numbers play a prominent and varied role in the Bible. They appear throughout both Testaments, even though no part of the Bible has a purely scientific or mathematical purpose...Numbers are not only prevalent in the Bible, but their use is varied.” These uses include the conventional, rhetorical, symbolic and mysterious or hidden. (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) We will illustrate two of these functions with the number four. There is no use in discussing the conventional applications here, and the examples of hidden purposes in the Bible are few and far between (perhaps in this category would be included 666).

As for the rhetorical utilization of numbers, one type found in the Hebrew Bible is known as x / x+1 poetic parallelism. This sounds like a rather technical term, but it represents a rather simple concept. Let me start out in explaining it by comparing it roughly to the English expression “One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, and four to go.” In this case, there is no particular significance to the numbers themselves except for the fact that they get higher each time. But the rhetorical function (how it affects the reader or hearer) is to accomplish two things: lead to an increase in intensity with each subsequent phrase and reach a state of completion with the last number.

In the Bible, this translates to expressions such as “Three things are too wonderful for me: four I do not understand.” (Proverbs 30:18) This phrase is followed in verse 19 by a listing of four examples that the poet has observed on earth. Note that “too wonderful for me” is another way of saying “I do not understand.” Thus, it falls into the general category of biblical parallelism of thought typical of Hebrew poetry. Did the poet start out with only three items in mind and then happened to remember a fourth one to add at the end? Obviously not since that same type of expression (usually involving the numbers 3 and 4) appears multiple times in Prov. 30 and eight times in Amos 1-2 as well as in Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; and Deuteronomy 5:9. Instead, the increasing numbers are used for their rhetorical value only.

In two separate articles in DBI, authors attempt to explain the exact meaning of this phenomenon, but they do not quite agree with one another. Thus, one says that “the intended effect of the parallelism is to impress the reader that there are many other unspecified [items] at issue here.” But another commentator states that “the move from the lower to the higher number is not for the purpose of arriving at the 'right' number, but to intensify the thought.” I believe that they are both correct but have neglected to notice another factor at work here. To explain what I mean, let us next consider the symbolic meaning of the number four.

Among the numbers chosen for their symbolic meaning, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 1,000 are probably the most prominent in the Bible. Three is obviously symbolic for the Godhead; seven and ten for completion; 12 for the chosen people of God (tribes, minor prophets, major judges, and apostles); and 1,000 quite often stands for an unspecified large number. But what about the number 4? A number of scholars simply treat “4” as yet another way of expressing the concept of completion or universality, but I feel that answer is a partial one at best. Look at just some of the many ways “4” is used in the Bible, listed in no particular order:

Four rivers flowing from the garden of Eden to water the earth (Gen. 2:10-14)

Four major kingdoms in Daniel 2, 7, and 11

Four winds (10x in the Bible)

Four corners of the earth (Is. 11:12; Jer. 49:36; Ezek 7:2; Rev. 7:1; 20:8)

Four living creatures (Ezek. 1:1; 10:14; Revelation – 10x)

Four horses / horsemen patrol the earth and execute judgment on it (Zech. 1:7-17; 6:1:1-8; Rev. 6:2-8)

Four types of destruction for judgment (Jer. 15:1-3)

Four corners on the sheet in Peter's vision containing all the animals (Acts 10:11; 11:5)

Four similar groups of four in Revelation describing all humanity (every tribe, every tongue, etc.)

In addition, the number 4 figures very prominently in descriptions of the furnishings of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-39), the Temple (I Kings 7), and the eschatological Temple found in Ezekiel 40-48. Later Jewish writers compared the Temple to a representation of creation.

One common factor in all of these appearances of “four” is that they refer in one way or another to the totality of something here on earth. I find added support in this opinion from at least two scholarly sources.

A. Concerning the x / x+1 sayings:

Hubbard: “Numerical sayings [usually involving the number four] are illustrations drawn from creation to shed light on the behavior of creation's most puzzling creature: the human being.”

B. Concerning the symbolic meaning:

Ellul: Four “is traditionally the number of the universe, which was understood in antiquity according to a rhythm of fours: four cardinal points, four seasons, four reigns, four elements, etc...Therefore, this number expresses all of creation.”

With this basic symbolic understanding of the number in hand, coupled with “three” as a symbol of God, basic arithmetic can be used to explain why:

Seven, as the total of 3+4, stands for completion. All that exists in the cosmos is God and what He created.

Twelve, as the product of 3x4, stands for God's chosen people, i.e. God working through representatives of His creation.

NEHEMIAH 5: KEEPING UP MORALE

There is one major issue that comes up in this chapter. Under Persian rule, the people in a district were expected to support their appointed governors monetarily. But those of the wealthy class in Judea were already milking the people dry by charging them exorbitant interest rates for loans. And if they defaulted on their payments, their children were often sold into slavery. These complaints come to Nehemiah's ears and he becomes righteously indignant.

This illustrates one of Nehemiah's reason for success as a manager of people – he not only listened to their complaints but also acted on them. I have been blessed in the past by having direct supervisors who were open to listening to me and then supporting me if they felt my complaints or suggestions warranted it.

Nehemiah confronts these elite members of society in order to expose their wrongdoings. Now humiliating those who report to you in a public manner is not often the wisest or kindest thing to do, but on occasion that is the only way you can get some people to change their behavior. And the other thing that it accomplishes is to show those who have been abused by their actions that you are wholeheartedly behind them in trying to redress the situation. I must admit that I have gotten on my high horse on occasion and reacted in public when I should have talked to the offending parties first in private (as Paul advises). However, there are times when you know that people who are dead set on pursuing their own selfish ends instead of working toward the common good need to be exposed for all to see.

The other thing about Nehemiah as a model manager that we learn from this chapter is that he tries to restore morale by demonstrating that he is also sacrificing along with everyone else during the difficult times they were living in. He reveals that he (along with his brothers) has been lending the poorer people money and grain (v. 10), refused to take the food allowance usually given to the governor (v. 14), acquired no land while he was in Judea (v. 16), and even held lavish banquets for others at his own expense (vv. 17-18). All of this went to show that he was united with them in trying to reach the common goal set before them. His position did not him exempt from making sacrifices along with everyone else.

I can relate to Nehemiah's situation in that I was once placed in an even more difficult one in terms of my personal welfare. I had been brought in about a year earlier to supervise a research group whose work I was totally unacquainted with. And then our group was brought in to to top management in order to inform us that a whole division of the company was being sold to a competitor and that we were part of the deal. The tentative agreement between the two firms was not at all favorable to us as employees. We were each guaranteed to be given an offer from the other company, whose research facilities were located in another state which had a much higher cost of living than ours. However, that company was free to fire any of us soon after we arrived if they so wished (and they later followed through with that threat for a number of our sales force). On the other hand, if we chose to reject their offer of employment, local management told us that there would not be enough slots in our company left to go around. And our company was given strict orders by the purchasing company not to give  secret guarantees to any of us.

Nehemiah's first move, as you recall, was to chew out the ones causing the problem, the “leaders” of the people. But often, as in my case, you are not in any position in the company to complain to upper management concerning their immoral behavior. But there is always Nehemiah's second action to emulate. You can show your group that you are in the same boat and are suffering equally. In my case, I was in even a worse disadvantage than my group was. I had been out of the area of hands-on research for a number of years; I knew next to nothing about the specific technology the other company was interested in; I was later told by my counterpart in the purchasing company that they already had more management staff than they knew what to do with; my oldest children were approaching college age and in-state tuition in the new state was way higher than in Texas; and to top it off, I had been given a secret assurance by my second level manager.

The last point would seem to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage, but that was not the case. In fact, the assurance I was given (by my bosses' boss who had fought my first promotion into management much earlier) was that I needed to keep up the morale of the group until the deal was finalized, and that would not take place for many more months to come. And if I failed to do that and the business suffered in any way, or if the deal fell through, I would be held personally responsible and would not have a job with either company.

Naturally, the longer the process dragged on, the more frustrated my direct reports became. Almost each day I would have to intervene in conflicts between two or more of them. One employee would be calm one day and then blow up over nothing the following day, and I could never predict which of them would go ballistic next. One thing that kept me going over the long duration of this interim period was the fact that God had always seen to it in the past that I came out ahead, no matter what the circumstances. However, even my reassurances to my group were taken by some as an indication that management had given me promises that I would be well taken care of, unlike the rest of them. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

It all worked out well in the end, but that is a part of the story that I will relate in my post on Nehemiah 6 regarding the way to deal with enemies.

 

NEHEMIAH 4: DEALING WITH ENEMIES -- PART ONE

 

In Neh. 1:10 and 2:19 we were introduced to several enemies of the Jews who are not at all happy about attempts to rebuilt the fortifications around the city, and so they begin to make fun of the pathetic efforts that are being made. In chapter 4 these enemies take the center stage.

Nehemiah 4:1-1-3 The Samaritan and Ammonite enemies begin to mock the Israelites in an attempt to demoralize them. But Nehemiah turns their insults into a rallying cry for the people to work with renewed effort. This sort of thing sometimes happened to us when those in our business centers or production plants began to act as if they were superior to those of us in R&D. One repeated comment to us was that whereas they were involved in actually making money for the company, we represented company overhead as a drain on the bottom line. It got to be a bit annoying at times, but we knew deep down that without our generation of new products to sell and our plant and customer technical services, the company could really not survive long without us. In the same way, Nehemiah tells the people to ignore the taunts and remember that they are doing God's work.

By the way, there is one taunt recorded in v. 3 that may have a bit of truth in it. Tobiah says, “That stone wall they are building – any fox going up on it would cause it to tumble!” In fact, archeologists who have excavated remains of the early Jerusalem wall have noted that the stones for some of the upper portions are laid in a very random pattern compared to the much more precisely laid original wall.

This illustrates another general principle usually expressed as “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”I prefer to state it in a form that I guarantee you will never find in any business manual: “Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.”

Let me back up a bit at this point to explain myself because I know that I can be accused of contradicting an earlier statement I made in a post on Nehemiah 1-2. There I noted the example of George Washington Carver who always tried to do the best he possibly could even when carrying out the most menial job. But while I would certainly not counsel doing just enough to get by at your job, it is possible at times to go too far in the opposite direction. At the first laboratory I worked, I noted that there was one rather elderly bench chemist there who did not have a very high laboratory title. I found that he was a very meticulous worker who had never made any real contributions to the company in his many years of working there. (You might ask at this point why he hadn't been let go decades earlier, but that is another management failure that is too far off the subject to discuss.) The problem stemmed from the fact that he was a perfectionist who was constantly redoing his experiments because the equipment might have not been washed enough, was washed with too much soap, his technician had stirred the reaction mixture clockwise instead of counterclockwise, etc.,etc.

Unfortunately, I had one such employee later on in my own department. He wasn't a bad chemist, but after one of his projects was completed, I kept having to bug him to write up his results in what we called Formal Research Reports. Our secretary informed me that she had already typed up his whole report months earlier, and she had it all ready except for the appendix. I should explain that never in my experience had anyone ever even looked at a research report after it was catalogued and put away for safe keeping somewhere or other, and certainly no one had ever had the need to pore through any of the tables of data found in an appendix. Our secretary then told me that even the appendix had been completed and typed up a long time earlier, but that the chemist had taken it back from her once he looked through the whole report.

I confronted the chemist and asked him to return the appendix to the secretary immediately so that he could go on to the next important assignment that was waiting for him. He explained that he couldn't do that because he realized that the font in the tables in the appendix didn't match that in the body of the report. But, he explained, he was going to correct the situation because he had been spending the last month or two trying to write a computer program to automatically change the font to the correct one (you can guess that this was in the very primitive days of computers). Our secretary told me that he had been informed that she could re-type the whole thing to his satisfaction in one day but he had refused. I saw that he was transferred to a desk job, and when the next lay-offs were announced, he was one of the first to be let go.

Getting back to Nehemiah and his situation, in the first place the volunteers who rebuilt the walls were by no means stonemasons. But more pertinently, the immediate task at hand was to secure the walls against outside attack, not to win the Architecture Digest annual award for the neatest fortifications.And this was becoming increasingly more important each day as the vultures began to circle.

Speaking of vultures, it is time to get back to what Israel's enemies were up to next since mere mockery was not enough to stop the work from proceeding. The next probable move on their part was to actually attack the walls before they could be strengthened any further. To guard against that eventuality, Nehemiah has armed guards stationed around the city. The only somewhat oblique parallel in my own work experience is to point out that our major role within the company was to ensure its long-term viability by coming up with improved products and manufacturing processes so that we could compete with anything new that our competition might develop. This is something that every business group, large or small, has to factor into their business plans if they want to survive into the future.

Verse 19 is an interesting one to ponder. Nehemiah notes that the various work teams with their armed guards are widely separated from one another. Thus, he tells them that if any are attacked, they should immediately sound a trumpet and the others will rush over to aid them repel the enemy. Most companies are divided into different departments or silos, and often they feel that their particular entity is the only one that counts. But upper management must constantly look for ways to cross-fertilize the resources of all the departments and get them to cooperate rather than compete with one another. Helping them to realize that they all have a common enemy outside the company is one way to accomplish that.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN JAMES

You might think that such a devout pillar in the Jerusalem church as James would draw heavily on the Hebrew OT in writing his epistle. He is certainly acquainted with it, but his letter shows the equal influence of his half-brother Jesus' teachings, the Greek Septuagint version of the OT, and a number of intertestamental Jewish writings. We will only deal with his use of the Jewish Scriptures.

1:1 In his opening greeting to his audience, he refers to them as “the twelve tribes of the Dispersion.” On the surface this appears to identify them as Jews scattered among the nations as the result of the various waves of exile they underwent much earlier in their history. But it is equally possible, and actually probable in the minds of many commentators, that James is applying that term to Christians, both Jew and Gentile, who were scattered throughout the Roman Empire or whose “exile” consisted of the fact that earth was not their true home.

1:5 The advice to ask God for wisdom should remind the reader of the one request King Solomon made of Him (see I Kings 3).

1:6 James compares doubters to waves of the sea tossed to and fro. This is an example of the NT use of an OT phrase, appearing also in Isaiah 57:20 where it is applied to the wicked. The use here illustrates the principle that you can't just assume that because similar language in the NT occurs in the OT that it must refer to the same thing or is a fulfillment of an earlier prophecy. This is especially true in the case of the Book of Revelation which is replete with OT phraseology.

1:10 The transitory position of the rich is compared to the limited lifetime of wildflowers in a field. This same simile appears numerous times in the OT in passages such as Job 14:2; Psalm 90:5-6; Psalm 103:15; and Isaiah 40:6-8 where it is applied to humanity in general. In Psalm 37:2 it refers to the fate of the wicked.

1:11 This continuation of the same thought also draws upon the Greek version of I Samuel 7.

1:12a The opening of this verse “blessed are” is familiar to all of us through the Beatitudes, but it also is utilized in OT texts such as Psalm 1:1.

1:12b The promise to those who love God alluded to in the rest of v. 12 may refer back to texts such as Exodus 20:6.

1:17 God is called the “Father of Lights” in this verse. It is actually refers back to His role as the Creator, as seen in Genesis 1:15-16 and Psalm 136:7.

1:27 “Widows and orphans” are given as the prime examples of the needy in society in Psalm 68:5 and are prime recipients of some of the legislation found in Deuteronomy, chapters 10 to 18.

James 2:5 The idea of God choosing the poor of the earth to be heirs of the kingdom is not only found in the Sermon on the Mount, but also in such OT texts as I Samuel 2:8.

2:8 James labels the great commandment in Leviticus 19:18 as “the royal law,” probably because it comes from God the King.

2:9 See Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 19.

2:10-12 “The One who said” is, of course, God; and the rest of the verses quote two of the Ten Commandments is reverse order. This phenomenon occurs elsewhere in the Bible when someone is commenting on a pre-existing document or saying. The net effect is to create a sort of chiasm, a mirror-image arrangement:

Source:

A

        B

Comment:

        B'

A'

2:21 Abraham is the first of four OT personages who will be cited as James as examples. The specific event referred to here is his willingness to sacrifice his son.

2:23a This is the first example of an actual OT quotation found in this epistle, and it is introduced by the familiar formula: “In this way the scripture was fulfilled which said.” The source of the quotation is found in Genesis 15:6, which interestingly appears before Abraham's offering, not before. D.A. Carson explains that Abraham's faith was completed in the obedience shown by the later sacrifice.

2:23b The expression “friend of God” also appears in Isaiah 41:8, where it refers to Abraham. What a honor to be called God's friend!

2:25 The next OT example offered is that of Rahab the prostitute. She is not commended for her sexual behavior or the lie she told to save the Jewish spies, but for her protection of them. Her story is recounted in Joshua 2. The author of Hebrews similarly commends her for her faith (Heb. 11:31). It should be gratifying to us that her sins are not remembered anymore, only her faith in God.

James 3:9 “Those made in the likeness of God” refers back to Genesis 1:26; 9:6.

3:13 This is an echo of the Greek version of Deuteronomy 1:13, according to Felder.

3:18 This agricultural metaphor is similar to language found in Isaiah 32:15-17.

James 4:4 The image of adultery to portray one who deserts God for anything or anyone else is common in the OT. See Hosea 3:1; Exodus 20:3; and Deuteronomy 5:7; 6:13.

4:5 Strangely, although this is only the second time in the letter that a citation formula has been used, no one has yet identified where the actual quotation comes from. However, the general idea is also expressed in passages such as Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24; and Zechariah 8:2. Carson feels that no particular quotation was actually in mind here (just the general concept of God being a jealous God), and therefore no quotation marks should be used in translation.

4:6 The simple formula “It says” is used to introduce Proverbs 3:34.

James 5:4 For this idea, see Deuteronomy 24:14-15 and Isaiah 5:9.

5:5 The expression “Day of slaughter” also appears in Isaiah 30:25 and Jeremiah 12:3.

5:6 This verse may possibly allude to the murder of Abel, whose blood cried out from the earth.

5:10 As examples of patient and suffering OT prophets, look at I Kings 19:10; II Chronicles 24:21; and Jeremiah 26:20-23.

5:11 Job is given as the third OT person in the letter to emulate, this time for his patience in the midst of trials (see Job 1:20-22; 2:10 especially).

5:14 The use of oil as a medicinal aid appears in the Parable of the Good Samaritan and earlier in Isaiah 1:6.

5:17-18 The prophet Elijah is the last cited OT personage in the letter, mainly for his faith in prayer (as in I Kings 17:1; 18:1,41-45). Carson points to two inconsistencies between these I Kings passages and the discussion here in James.

    1. The OT never actually mentions that Elijah prayed for the rain to start, only for it to start again. However, that fact was inferred by early rabbis whose writings were probably familiar to James.

    2. In I Kings it says that the rain lasted three years. James says it was 3 ½ years instead. The probable reason that James rounded up the number was that 3 ½ is half of the number 7, symbolic of completion. Therefore it is symbolic of an interim time of limited duration during which humanity may undergo trials. This is the meaning in passages such as Daniel 7:25; 9:27;12:7,11-12; Luke 4:25; and Revelation 11:2,9,11; 12:14.

 

NEHEMIAH 2:11-4:5 DEALING WITH EMPLOYEES

 

Nehemiah 2:11-16 After procuring permission from the king and picking up some needed supplies, Nehemiah heads to Judea. But surprisingly, he doesn't charge right into Jerusalem and begin giving orders on what to do. Instead, he scopes out the situation for himself before acting. Our company was once bought out by an entrepreneur who had never owned a chemical firm like ours before. We later found out that one of his first planned actions was to shut down the research wing entirely. But fortunately he took the better part of a day to first look at our facility himself. It soon became obvious that we were not at all what he had expected, and so he delayed for enough time to realize our true worth to the company.

Nehemiah 2:17-19 When Nehemiah's fact-finding mission is complete, he next assembles the leaders in Jerusalem and casts a grand vision to rebuild the walls and gates of the city. His speech to them is quite short, at least what is recorded for us here. But sometimes all that is needed from a leader is to point out an existing problem and express strongly your interest in getting it solved. And after their enthusiastic reply, the text tells us, “So they committed themselves to the common good.” This is an important point because unless those who report to you are shown that they themselves will benefit by a change, they will only be committing to action under duress. One of the former presidents of our company liked to give recorded pep talks shown at all our locations. He did just like Nehemiah in that he pointed out the challenges we were facing, but stopped short of showing anyone how they might personally benefit by working harder or smarter.

I was once charged with the task of increasing the number of inventions generated in our labs. I first did my homework by attending a number of seminars by creativity experts, began posting mind puzzles in our monthly newsletter, showed movies at lunch to the chemists and engineers on the theme followed by discussion sessions, and eventually devised a number of workshops on the principles of creativity to the technical staff. But I never attempted to outline how any of them were to incorporate those principles in their individual jobs. As a result, the number of creative ideas we came up with increased dramatically. And I believe that part of that success was because the rest of the technical staff saw how passionately interested in the subject I was.

Chapter 3 is a roster of the various families and groups that took part in the repair of the wall and gates of the city. In a way, it is like the annual recognition banquet I instituted for those who had submitted patent suggestions or applications that year, and gave out plaques for those meeting patent milestones. It is amazing how a little thing like recognition of your efforts in front of your peers can motivate employees to do their best. Notice several things regarding this chapter. In the first place, although everyone is working toward the common goal, in a great number of the cases listed, the workers repaired portions of their wall the closest to their living abodes. I would also like to think that Nehemiah encouraged some good-natured, healthy competition between the groups to see who could finish their section the soonest. I know that I did that in some of my creativity workshops by giving out token prizes to individuals or groups that demonstrated the most creativity in solving problems that I gave them to solve.

There is only one cautionary note sounded in the middle of all the activity taking place, and that is found in v. 5 which states regarding the Tekoites that “their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their Lord.” This refusal of a few to demean themselves with manual labor is in stark contrast to the Levites, rulers, goldsmiths, etc. who were willing to join in even if they may not have been used to doing such hard work before. I even have several examples in my work experience that resonate with this story.

I once worked in the research division of a major oil company. Although our location was not a union shop, every few years when it was time for labor contracts at the refineries to be renewed, our technical staff would be on notice to be sent to the refineries and help keep them going during a strike. It was not required duty for any of us, but most people jumped at the chance because you could almost double your salary for the duration of the strike if you didn't mind the long hours. A chemist in our department volunteered one year but came back almost immediately. It seems as if they didn't have any immediate assignments for him to do and so he was asked to paint the lavatories. He promptly came back home and explained to us that it was beneath him to do such menial work. He didn't get any sympathy from the rest of us who would have been glad to clean the toilets for the money involved.

A more serious example of the illustration in v. 5 occurred at another location I worked at. Back when the quality improvement principles of business gurus such as Tom Peters were beginning to be taken seriously in American industry, it eventually reached our company. Some quality consultants were hired, and they first talked to our top executives in our corporate headquarters. It was quite an eye opener for them when they were confronted for the first time with their own deficits in management style, but they emerged from a literal all-night session with these experts as true believers in the process. I have to give them a lot of credit for humbling themselves and enthusiastically pitching in just as the various priests, nobles and officials in Jerusalem did in Nehemiah's time. However, there are always holdouts. In our case, unfortunately it was the head of our laboratories. He made it clear to all of us after the consultants had come and gone that quality improvement was for the rest of us, but he was exempt. Obviously, he either thought he was already doing a perfect job (which he certainly wasn't) or he was afraid of what an examination of his deficits would reveal. We tried to get the job done without him, but it certainly would have been much easier if he had set us a better example.

NEHEMIAH 1-2: DEALING WITH BOSSES

Although the Book of Nehemiah is in the Bible primarily for the spiritual lessons it has to offer, there is actually a lot of practical guidance in it for those in just about any work situation. And I believe that several books have been written on business principles exemplified by Nehemiah. Since I have occupied a number of different rungs on the corporate ladder over the years, I thought I would try to see if there were any commonalities between the way Nehemiah responded to his changing surroundings and my personal experiences in the work arena.

Chapter 1 introduces us to Nehemiah as he hears news from Judea concerning the dire straits the people are in and the poor condition of the walls surrounding Jerusalem. We see how passionately concerned he is that something be done about the situation. And I would venture to guess that Nehemiah up to that time had been almost equally passionate about fulfilling whatever duties were set before him. This points out that whatever task we are given to do, no matter important or trivial, we must approach it seriously and with all our energy and abilities. George Washington Carver was an excellent example of this principle. Even as a janitor, he tried to do the very best job he could, and because of his strong work ethic, he eventually ended up as a famous agricultural scientist.

In the second chapter, we learn that Nehemiah reports directly to the king of the whole Persian Empire – the equivalent of the CEO of a very large corporation. Not only that, but Nehemiah is also his cup-bearer, one of the most responsible positions that anyone could hold in ancient society since it was not unheard of for kings to be assassinated by putting poison in their wine. This brings up the question as to how a Jew such as Nehemiah could rise to such a position in the Persian court. Besides Nehemiah's personal qualifications, another possibility is that the Persians recognized the Jews in general for their high moral standards. If so, it could be equivalent to the situation of the hyper-paranoid Howard Hughes who surrounded himself with only Mormon associates to handle his financial matters. It wasn't that he subscribed to their theology, but because of their reputation for honesty.

In a small way I can relate to this. Years ago, a dispute arose between one of my fellow chemists and myself which was a case of his word against mine. The issue was important enough that it got sent to a manger two levels above me. He sided with me on the issue and explained that it was because he knew I was a religious person and so he trusted my word.

Another important principle here is that Nehemiah supported his boss with his very life. Helping your immediate supervisor to look good is not only the right thing to do, but also a practical guide to getting ahead in an organization (assuming that you are interested in doing that). I learned this while at a summer job during college working as a lowly file clerk in a large corporation. Apparently I delivered the mail promptly enough to the sales staff that when one of them got a better job at another company, he approached me and offered to put in a good word for me at his new job. I thanked him, but told him that I needed to finish my schooling first. I still don't know what I must have done right to prompt him to make that offer. But twice at my first full-time job, I was chosen to replace my immediate supervisor when he was promoted to a higher position in the company. This gives the lie to those “smarter” people who feel that the quickest way to success is to stab your boss in the back (more about that in a subsequent post).

As we read further in chapter two, we are given a description of an important encounter between Nehemiah and King Artaxerxes. We can learn a lot by looking at how these two people interacted. Nehemiah still has a distressed look on his face when he serves the king, and the king notices it immediately and asks him the the matter can be. Note how the king pays enough attention to his servant to notice the difference in his demeanor. That demonstrates that he was good at reading his employees. He not only notices a potential problem but also prompts Nehemiah to explain the matter to him. Most CEO's would hardly glance at an underling serving coffee at a meeting, for example, much less notice that there was anything bothering him, or ask him what the problem was. I have been on the receiving side of such a dismissive attitude before, and it is all too typical in large corporations especially.

To counteract that attitude if you happen to have people reporting to you, one useful technique that I followed as a manager was what has been called managing-by-walking-around. The principle behind this technique is that people are likely to have gripes that they are afraid to bring to their manager because they seem too minor to warrant making an official appointment or even walking into his/her office. But they are much more likely to open up if you casually visit each employee on a fairly regular basis at their office or cubicle and ask how things are going. I was amazed at how much I found out that way. How different that was from the first location I worked at where we didn't even see our boss three levels up until Christmas time came around and he made his requisite “Merry Christmas” greeting to each of us and shook our hands. One employee was walking from one lab to the other for some business and got his hand shook three times without the executive even noticing it.

Well, let's turn from Artaxerxes, the model boss, to Nehemiah the model employee. Whether or not Nehemiah planned in advance to approach the king with his story and request, it was obvious by the fact that the king asked him a question point blank that this was the ideal time to to do it. Knowing when to approach your boss can be quite an art. At one point in my career I was filling in for a missing supervisor and thus placed in a position where I had no one on the corporate ladder between the laboratory head and myself. It was always a nerve-racking situation to be in, made much worse by the fact that he was rather erratic in his behavior, to say the least. Some of the managers who were used to dealing with him had gotten to the point where they would only enter his office with a request if his secretary, who could read him like a book, tipped them off in advance what kind of mood he was in that day or that hour. Sometimes they would wait for weeks until they could catch him at a favorable time.

So I can empathize with poor Nehemiah who says, “And then I was really afraid.” before launching into his sad story with fear and trembling. After all, just consider the Book of Esther which also concerns a Jew in Persia who finds herself in a position of influence with the king, all the while subject to dire consequences if she approaches him with a request without being first summoned. But Nehemiah is obviously just as good at reading Artaxerxes as our secretary was at reading her boss, and so he describes the horrible situation in Judea and makes it clear how concerned he is.

Several times I have been in the unenviable position of making a one-on-one presentation to the head of the company. In one case, our president was a bully who loved to look for weaknesses in others and try to humiliate them in public. He had done it to one of my chemists, and I didn't appreciate it at all. So when I was about half way through my speech to him, I noticed something very odd about his behavior. He was staring at me intensely without blinking. I laughed to myself because I realized that he was trying to intimidate me in that childish manner. So I took a long glance at my notes and, with a pleasant smile on my face, began to do the same thing to him. When he looked away rather embarrassedly, I knew that I had either made my point or lost my job at that point. Fortunately, I had read him correctly as a bully who is a coward at heart.

But incorrect reading of a superior can have disastrous consequences, as much later one of our vice presidents found out when he was presenting his yearly budget to the owner of our company. He felt so confident of himself that he answered a question posed by the owner in a very flippant manner and was fired the next day.

Getting back to our story, the king replies, “What do you want?” This is another tricky moment, as I well know, and I can see why Nehemiah utters a short prayer to God before giving his answer. The problem at this point for anyone in the same situation as Nehemiah is that he can easily get into trouble if he asks for too much or too little. I have learned this lesson the hard way, especially in the yearly employee evaluation meetings between all the managers overseen by the laboratory head. Each of us, of course, wanted to give all of our own employees the best ratings and raises. But if one of us was too obvious about it, the head of the labs would sense it and ignore even the more deserving candidates. On the other hand, if we just caved in to the other managers' desires, our own employees soon found out that they were always behind those in the other sections. This could easily destroy morale in our group and lead to mass requests to be transferred to another section.

The exact same thing happened each year when it was time to formulate a budget for the following year. Each of us tried to get the most money funneled into our groups for new manpower and equipment. One year, one of my direct reports turned in his budget to me which included having a whole building turned over to his group and taken away from the one that presently occupied it. He actually had valid reasons to justify this request, but I tried, unsuccessfully, to explain to him what would happen if I presented his proposal in a meeting with other departments. It would have destroyed both his credibility and mine with the rest of the laboratory.

With that sort of background experience, I can certainly understand why all Nehemiah asks for is a short leave of absence to go to Jerusalem to scope out the situation personally. By the way, this illustrates another valuable piece of advice: before going off in a rampage to try to correct a situation you have heard about second hand, check out the facts for yourself.

At that point (v. 7), Nehemiah is encouraged by the favorable response from the king enough to make another request for letters of safe passage and materials to help rebuild the gates of Jerusalem. I have actually done the same thing on occasion in making one request after another until my boss actually said, “That's enough, Dave.” You have to learn how far to push your luck. Finally note that in v. 8, Nehemiah thanks God for what had just happened. Of course, Nehemiah was on the side of the angels in this issue and so it is no surprise that God made sure it happened. As a manager or employee, however, it is not nearly as easy to discern whether your own wishes are truly in line with God's will.

Nehemiah 2:9-10 introduce two new characters into the story, but we will save discussion of them until another post.

 

"HONEY" IN THE BIBLE

I find it interesting to take a Greek or Hebrew word in the Bible and look at all its occurrences, as found through an analytical concordance. In that way, you can trace how that word is used in different settings, get a better idea of exactly what it means, and see how certain biblical authors picked up identical phrases from earlier writers and utilized them in another context. As an example, I chose the word “honey” (debash in Hebrew and meli in Greek). In addition, there are five different Hebrew words translated as “honeycomb” in the Bible, and these usually appear in parallel or in conjunction with debash.

The exact meaning of debash appears on the surface to be somewhat nebulous since its occurrences with “honeycomb” obviously associate it with the product of bees, but II Chronicles 31:5 calls it a product of the field. In comparing several scholarly sources, it appears that most of them agree that debash is a general term that can refer both to the product from bees or syrup made from grapes, dates, figs or carob fruit. One thing is obvious – “honey” is definitely sweet to the taste. Proverbs 27:7 builds on this fact in its wise observation: “One who is stuffed spurns honey, but to a hungry person, even something bitter tastes sweet.” Let's consider some of the ways this word is utilized.

Of course, the most recognizable expression in which the word appears is “a land flowing with milk and honey.” This phrase occurs sixteen times in the Old Testament referring to the Promised Land of Canaan, and obviously it is a hyperbolic term meaning a very fertile land suitable for dwelling and raising crops and livestock. In that respect, it reminds me of the old song “Big Rock Candy Mountain,” a sort of promised land for hobos who won't have to lift a finger in order to be stuffed with food forever. Even the timid spies sent out to check out the land admit that it is a land of milk and honey before pointing out the dangers there also (Numbers 13:27).

As to why these two food items are coupled together, Olivier notes that the first item comes from animals while the second one comes from plants. However, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery feels that the significance comes from the fact that milk represents one of the bare necessities for existence while honey is more of a luxury food. By either reckoning, the pair of nouns probably can be treated as a merism, a figure of speech in which two opposite items together representing everything in between as well. Another common biblical merism is the pair “Alpha and Omega.”

The phrase is even utilized after the Israelites have occupied the land for some time. Thus, in the somewhat enigmatic prophecy found in Isaiah 7, God promises that before the child Immanuel grows up, the land will again be producing milk and honey for himself and all the people. That these blessings on the land all come from God is made clear in Ezekiel 16:13,19. For some strange reason, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery expresses the exact opposite view and states that “milk and honey” denotes that the people of Israel will be driven away from their land and forced to subsist on whatever food they can pick up in the wilderness. Read the Isaiah 7 passage yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Variations on the “milk and honey” expression are found in Deuteronomy 8:7-9 (“a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey, etc.”) and II Kings 18:31-32 (“a land of grain and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive oil and honey”). Interestingly, this last description comes from the lying lips of the Rabshakeh, who is trying to talk the Jews into surrendering to his army by promising them he will take them to a land just like their own.

Conversely, the wicked will not enjoy “brooks of honey and butter” according to Job's friend Zophar (Job 20:17).

Honey was considered desirable enough to be suitable as a gift to give to pharaoh (Genesis 43:11), David and his troops (II Samuel 17:29), and a prophet (I Kings 14:3). In addition, hidden stores of honey and other foodstuffs were an acceptable ransom to Ishmael that saved the lives of some Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 41:8).

Honey features in the Exodus story in some additional ways. The manna in the wilderness was compared to wafers made with honey (Exodus 16:31). And Moses in Deuteronomy 32:13 says in a hyperbolic expression that God cared for the people in the wilderness by nursing them with honey and oil from rocks. Psalm 81:16 promises that if the Jews repent, God will care for them again in the very same way.

Honey and honeycomb appear several times in the Book of Proverbs to make various points. Proverbs 16:24 compares pleasant words to a honeycomb in that both are sweet to the soul and body. In 24:13-14, to “eat honey” appears to be a figure of speech for acquiring wisdom. Prov. 25:16 gives the practical advice that eating an excess of honey can be too much of a good thing. In the same way, the following verse applies this principle to visiting with your neighbor and overstaying your welcome. A modern saying in the area of entertainment is to always leave your audience wanting more. I would also say that his applies to some preachers who make their point in about 20 minutes and then continue to hammer it in for another hour until you are sick of hearing it. Prov. 25:27 then applies that same advice to showing that a person should not try to seek to amass more and more honors in life. Take that to heart, you overachievers!

Proverbs 5:3 characterizes the loose woman as having lips that drip honey and speech as smooth as oil. In other words, she promises pleasure but can't really be trusted. Interestingly, the beloved woman in Song of Songs is described by her lover in similar erotic terms: “Your lips drip nectar my love; honey and milk are under your tongue.” (4:11; also see 5:1)  Presumably, however, she does not share any other characteristics of the loose woman.

Honey only appears in two undisputed contexts in the New Testament. One is as a description of John the Baptist's diet (along with locust). This, along with his rough garb (both described in Matt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6), mark clearly his ascetic lifestyle. At the end of Luke's Gospel (24:42), at least some translations have the resurrected Jesus eating a piece of boiled fish and from a honeycomb. But as Bruce Metzger points out, that last phrase is missing in a wide variety of earlier manuscripts and thus was probably added later on. His explanation is that the addition could have been due to the fact that the early church began to utilize honey in both the communion and baptismal ceremonies.

The second NT reference is found in Revelation 10:9-10 where John is told by an angel to take the small scroll and eat it. It is sweet to taste but is bitter in the stomach. The symbolism here is that God's Word is always sweet even if it does contain messages of judgment. This whole image is taken from Ezekiel 3:3 in which the prophet is told to eat a scroll which is sweet to taste. And it also represents God's word to an unrepentant nation. This same description of God's word as being sweet is found in the two wisdom psalms: Ps. 19:10 and 119:103.

Despite the mainly positive images of honey in the above references, there are a few more that appear to have negative overtones. Surprisingly, despite the fact that honey is one of the blessings from God and even appropriate to give as an offering to prominent people, we then run into Leviticus 2:11 where the people are instructed to give no cakes prepared with leaven or honey for their grain offerings. Several commentators I read beat around the bush a bit without committing themselves on the reason why these items were prohibited in that particular ritual. The most reasonable statement was that by Gordon Wenham: “No rationale for the ban on the use of yeast in sacrifice is provided in the Bible. Most commentators reckon that yeast and honey were prohibited because they cause fermentation. This they believe was unacceptable it suggested corruption. Another explanation is that yeast is a living organism and only dead things could be burned on the altar in sacrifice. However, see Lev. 23:17,20 and 2 Chron 3:15.” Allis adds that the latter cited regulation “seems to be intended to guard against the inference that leaven and honey were unclean in themselves.”

But if honey is not unclean, why are both Samson and Jonathan criticized for eating it? Both situations are easy to explain. Samson was dedicated to God as a nazarite at his birth, and his mother was told that he should drink no wine, not cut his hair, and abstain from unclean food. Of course, we know that Samson was far from being a teetotaler and got into big trouble when his hair was cut, but what about the fact that he ate honey (Judges 14)? His big sin here was not that he ate honey, but that he took it from an animal's carcass. That made it an unclean food, and he compounded his sin by giving it to his parents as well. In I Samuel 14 we see that Jonathan was made to be another inadvertent “sinner” when he found some honey to eat after his father Saul got his troops to make a vow that they would not eat again until the enemy was defeated. Jonathan was not present when that vow was made, however, and so he fell unknowingly under its curse. And again, the problem wasn't that he had eaten honey, but that he had eaten any food at all.

So “honey,” however you define it, remains an image of one of God's blessings to mankind.

 

WHAT DID JESUS KNOW?

One of the unique properties of God is his omniscience; in other words, He is all-knowing. And we can assume that the other persons of the Godhead shared that characteristic. In the case God the Son, that would refer both to Christ's pre-existence and present status. But what about Jesus' earthly existence? Did he possess omniscience then? There are two indications that he did not – one found at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and one toward the end.

Luke 2:20 describes the young Jesus' maturation as follows: “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature. and in favor with God and man.” The fact that there was an increase with time in three of these characteristics is self-evident. But what about “wisdom?” It is not really the same as knowledge; however, it has been often defined as the ability to know what to do with knowledge. So even in this verse, we cannot say one way or the other whether Jesus grew in the ability to utilize his pre-existing omniscience or was constantly obtaining new knowledge as he grew and used this as the basis for increasing wisdom. In C.S. Lewis' novel The Great Divorce, one of the characters is a Bible teacher who is obsessed with speculative questions. One of his areas for endless debate concerns the question of how much wiser and knowledgeable Jesus would have become if he had just lived a few more decades longer. Of course, in Lewis' mind that is a foolish question since Jesus already was omniscient. But was Lewis correct?

The Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus even at age 12 was able to have conversations in the temple with the most learned Bible scholars of the day who were amazed at his knowledge. But lest you think that they were judging him against other boys of that age only, we have the witness of John 7:15-16 that he was still able to amaze them as a grown man.

A teaching later in Jesus' life found in Mark 13:32 seems to definitely limit the amount of knowledge Jesus had while on earth, at least concerning one specific area, the date of the End. Jesus said that only the Father knew. Another possible example of Jesus' limited knowledge regarding future events is found in Matthew 20:23 when the question arises as to who is going to sit on his left and right in heaven. Again, Jesus defers to the Father either because he does not know the answer or does know but refuses to reveal the answer. We even see the same phenomenon in Acts 1:6-7 regarding the question of when Israel will be restored. Here it is actually the resurrected Jesus who again says that it is for the Father to set the times. However, note that Christ does not say that he doesn't know the answer, only that it is not his secret to reveal.

Other than those few examples, all but one of which are ambiguous in meaning, what about the bulk of Jesus' time of ministry? I started to review all of the gospels in a roughly chronological manner using a Harmony of the Gospels as a guide, but rapidly got bogged down in a wealth of data. To simplify the task I decided to limit myself to the Gospel of John since he actually utilizes the two Greek words most commonly translated as “know” more that the other three gospel accounts combined. I will discuss what I came up with in terms of separate thematic similarities rather than tracing Jesus' career chronologically.

Rhetorical Questions

Beginning with the early chapters of Genesis, we see God asking questions of humans such as “Where are you?” addressed to Adam in the Garden of Eden. Even a novice reader of the Bible would not be misled at this point into thinking that the God of all Creation did not know the answer. However, when it comes to the earthly Jesus, it is not so obvious whether he might or might not have gaps in his knowledge. Here are some examples of questions that Jesus asked others. In almost all cases, it becomes obvious from the context that Jesus is not trying to elicit information that he lacks.

John 1:38 Jesus is walking by when he turns to see two probably scruffy looking fishermen following him. Not liking their looks and suspecting their motives, he decides to confront them while they are still in a public place and before they reach a more private location where they can perhaps overpower and rob him worse. He asks, “What are you looking for?” When they reply, “Where are you living?” his worst suspicions are confirmed. If you don't recognize that story in the Bible, it is actually a quite plausible interpretation of the events described in verses 37-38. But that would only be if one omitted the opening setting (vv. 35-36) in which John the Baptist has just told these two men that Jesus is the Lamb of God. Also, my interpretation above would make absolutely no sense out of Jesus' actual response in v. 39 since he invites them to come with him. The only real reason that Jesus asked his question in the first place was to get both of the men to admit that they were willing to treat him as their teacher (rabbi) and wished to follow him as his disciples.

In John 6:5, he asks Phillip where enough food could be purchased to feed the multitudes, but in the following verse John explains that the only reason he pretended to be ignorant on the point was to test Phillip.

In the story of Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery, he asks in John 8:10-11 where her accusers are. This was obviously just as a lead-in to his following words to her. And his question in John 13:14 is also identified as rhetorical since Jesus himself answers it immediately. In John 16:31, Jesus asks his disciples, “Do you now believe?” But this is just to preface his warning to them that they will soon desert him.

When Jesus asks (in 18:4) those coming to arrest him “Whom do you seek?” he obviously knows the answer already since he has been predicting this event for years. The same is true when he asks Mary the identical question outside the garden tomb (see 20:15). And then we get a whole string of additional rhetorical questions from the risen Lord in 18:34; 21:6, 15-18.

“Non-Questions”

There are two places in John's Gospel where it looks as if Jesus is asking a question, when in fact the original Greek expresses a Semitic idiom questioning the appropriateness of someone's comment that is not the questioner's concern. Thus, Raymond Brown mentions the possibility (although he rejects it) that John 2:4 can be interpreted as Jesus saying that neither he nor his mother should become involved in the current problem, which does not involve them. This is in analogy with the meaning of a similar Hebrew phrase in II Samuel 16:10. That general meaning definitely appears to be in mind also in John 21:23 when Jesus replies to Peter's request for information regarding John's ultimate fate. The literal translation of these two phrases is given below:

John 2:4: What to me and to thee?

John 21:23: What to thee?

Ability to Read the Thoughts of Others

In John 6:15, Jesus perceives that the crowd is about to make him king, even using force to attempt it. And so he leaves that place.

In that same chapter (verses 60-61) Jesus knows “in himself” that his disciples are murmuring at his teachings regarding eating his body and drinking his blood. This is obviously information that was not acquired by him eavesdropping on their conversations. Similarly, he perceives the apostles' thoughts in 16:19.

Hidden Knowledge of the Past

John 1:40-48 illustrates Jesus knowledge of past events in the call of two of his Apostles, Peter and Nathanael. Jesus appears to know Peter's name in v. 42 and Nathanael's personality in v. 47. However, in both cases they were brought to Jesus' attention through the actions of their brothers who were already followers. So it is indeed possible that Andrew told Peter's name to Jesus in advance and that Philip told Jesus about Nathanael's honest nature as well. However, none of that can explain away the fact that Jesus accurately recounted to Nathanael where he had been (under a fig tree) before Philip had even talked to him (v. 48). That fact alone convinced Nathanael that Jesus was the Son of God.

John 3:13-14 and 8:38 show that Jesus was aware of his past existence in heaven. That fact is also expressed in John 8:14 and 13:2-3 as well his knowledge of his future destination. The references to the knowledge God gave Jesus found in 12:49-50 and17:7-8 may also allude to what was revealed to him in his pre-incarnate state. The same could be true concerning the spiritual truths that Nicodemus was not ready to receive (see John 3:12-13).

John 5:38-41 demonstrates that Jesus knew that the Scriptures bore witness of him.

Hidden Knowledge of the Present

John 4:16-18 is a prime example of Jesus apparently having no knowledge of an event, but then revealing that he knew it all along as well as additional facts regarding the Samaritan woman's past life.

John 5:5-6 Jesus knows that the lame man has been that way for some long time, and 5:19-20 goes even further in stating that he knows what God is doing.

The whole passage in John 10 (especially vv. 13-18, 34-35) indicates that Jesus knows who are his sheep and belong to him.

Hidden Knowledge of the Near Future

John 1:51 is the first indication that Jesus also has insight into future events when he reveals to Nathanael his heavenly destination. In a similar manner, at the very end of John's Gospel (21:18-19) he reveals the mode of Peter's later death.

In John 2:19-22, Jesus predicts his own resurrection after three days in the tomb.

The information in John 6:64,70-71 is important in regard to the whole subject of Jesus' knowledge since it states that Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray him. It offers a good comeback to critics who say that Jesus certainly wasn't omniscient since he picked Judas as one of his apostles. Jesus repeats the fact of his pre-knowledge in 13:18-30.

In John 7:1 is contained the information that Jesus refused to leave Galilee because he knew the Jews in Judea were planning to kill him. In the same manner, 11:54 narrates the fact that Jesus later on knew that the council was planning to have him arrested, and so he departed Judea for the wilderness.

A repeated theme in John's Gospel is Jesus' comment to his disciples that he is going where he can't be found and they can't follow him. This appears in 7:32-36; 8:21-24; 13:31-36; and 16:16-19. Similarly, there are references to him being lifted up (on a cross) in 8:28 and 12:32-33.

He knows that he will be bringing Lazarus back to life (see John 11:4). And if we didn't have such overwhelming proofs of Jesus' supernatural knowledge elsewhere in John's Gospel, we might suspect that 11:34-35 reveals his ignorance of the tomb's location.

After repeated references to Jesus knowing that his hour had not yet come, in John 12:23 he knows that his hour has come. This is repeated in 13:1.

Peter's imminent denial of Jesus is accurately predicted in John 13:38. In 14:16,26 and well as 16:7-8, the Holy Spirit's coming is predicted. In 16:1-4, 32-33, the apostles are warned of their coming persecution. And in John 18:4, we find out that Jesus knew all the things that were about to happen to him.

Hidden Knowledge of the Distant Future

John 5:21-29 Jesus knows his future role as the judge of all mankind, and the resurrection of the dead on the last day. But other details of that time period are either veiled from him in his incarnate state or he is not free to reveal yet to mankind.

A fitting conclusion to all these references is found on the lips of those closest to Jesus in their final hours together. In John 16:30, they declare, “Now we know that you know all things, and do not need to have anyone question you; by this we believe that you came from God.”

 

CHRISTOLOGY: INTRODUCTORY STUDY GUIDE

In the Sunday school class I led for years, we had the practice of alternating our semester's subjects between OT books, NT books, and topical studies. Also, before the end of each semester, I presented to the class a number of potential subject to study next and allowed them to cast their ballots for their favorite. The title subject above was one that I dearly loved to tackle, but each time I proposed it along with alternative studies it always got the lowest ratings. After a few years, it got to be a sort of joke in our class. Eventually, after tweaking my title and approach several times, the class took pity on me and chose it for the following semester. I hope that you won't be as equally turned off by the subject since I think it serves as a relatively painless way to introduce the subject of Christology.

Basically, each lesson below covers one or more titles given to Christ in the Bible and couples it with one or more appropriate hymns to Christ found in the NT.

Titles for Jesus                                             Hymns

1. Introduction to Christology                     Mark 8, etc.

2. The Word/Angel of God                          John 1

3. God (Incarnate)                                       I Timothy 3:16; Philippians 2:5-11

4. Son of God/                                             Luke 1:32-35; Colossians 1:15-20

Firstborn of Creation

5. Son of Man                                             Hebrews 2:6-8

6. Son of Mary                                            Luke 1:47-55

7. Light of the World/                                 Ephesians 5:14

Light to the Gentiles

8. Cornerstone or Stumbling Block            Romans 9:33; I Peter 2:6-9; Luke 2:34-35

9. The Suffering Servant                            I Peter 2:21-24; Isaiah's Suffering Servant Songs

10. Lamb of God/                                       Titus 2:11-14; 3:4-7; Revelation 5:9-10

Savior

11. First Born of the Dead/                          Romans 8:31-39; I Cor. 15:34-36; I Peter 3:18-22

Interceder

12. Husband of the Church/ Revelation      7:15-17; 19:6-8

Good Shepherd

13. Christ/                                                    Luke 1:32-35; 68-79; Romans 15:9-12

Messiah/

Son of David/

Root of Jesse

14. King of Kings/                                       Revelation 19:12-16

Lord of Lords/

Judge

Some posts on this blog that may be of help are included below with the appropriate lesson number:

3. Philippians 2:5-6; Philippians 2:10; Philippians 2

8. I Peter 2

9. The Suffering Servant Songs

10. Revelation 5

11. I Peter 3:18-20

12. Revelation 6-7; Ephesians 5:21-33

 

ROMANS 3

This chapter can be read straight through as a logical argument. However, at the end of this short post we will see that an entirely different sort of arrangement recommends itself.

In verses 1-8, Paul offers four (hypothetical?) objections from Jewish Christians. (Davidson and Martin)

1. What advantage is there in being Jewish? (v. 1)

    Paul gives one answer in v. 2 and others in 9:4-5

2. Isn't God going back on His promises to the Jews? (v. 3)

    Paul replies in v. 4 and also in 9:6-13.

3. If the failure of the Jews points out the righteousness of God, then isn't He being unjust in blaming them? (v. 5)

    Paul replies in v. 6 and also in 9:14-24.

4. Why shouldn't I then do evil so that good can come out of it? (vv. 7-8)

    Answered in 6:1-14.

Verse 6 The word for “world” is kosmos, meaning not the physical earth but the present world system.

Verse 8 Keenen points out that ethicists have pondered for centuries how to answer the moral question of an act that may have both a good and bad effect. A summary of their arguments is called “The Principle of Double Effects,” which states that such an act could be performed ethically if all the following conditions are met:

    The object of the action is not intrinsically wrong.

    The wrong effect cannot be the intended one.

    The wrong effect cannot be the means to the wrong effect.

    There must be proportionate reason for allowing the wrong effect to occur.

Verses 10-18 constitute the longest chain of OT citations in all of Paul's letters. He obviously wanted to make sure his audience got the point that all are sinners. Holladay points out that all the psalms quoted are descriptions of the wicked in the laments. The sources for these quotations are shown below, usually given in the Greek Septuagint translation:

Romans 3             OT Scriptures

10-12                  Ps. 14:1b-2; 53:1b-3; Eccles. 7:20

13a                     Ps. 5:9a

13b                     Ps. 140:3b

14                       Ps. 10:7a

15                       Prov. 1:16; Is. 59:7a

16-17                 Is. 59:7b-8

18                       Ps. 36:1b

Verses 13-14 Notice the organs of speech referred to here: throats, tongues, lips and mouths. In addition, vv. 15-18 cover the whole body from head (“eyes” in v. 18) to toe (“feet” in v. 15).

Verse 13b The same metaphor of the tongue as a source of poison is used in James 3:8 and occurs in much Hellenistic Jewish literature.

Verse 15 Marcus Barth points out that those who wished to run quickly in those days took off their sandals first and ran barefoot.

Verse 17 Phillips says, “The human race finds the trappings of war fascinating...God once sent men a peace offering when the Prince of Peace was born, but men scorned and crucified Him.”

Verse 18 Cranfield: For someone condemned under sin, “the fear of God has no part in directing his life, that God is left out of his reckoning, that he is a practical, whether or not he is a theoretical, atheist.”

Verses 19-20 The correct us of the law in pointing out sin, leading to Christ as the only means of salvation, is also spelled out in I Timothy 1:8-11.

Verse 19 The “law” here refers to the whole Old Testament. By contrast, the same word in 21a probably refers to the observance of the commandments and in 21b refers specifically to the Pentateuch.

Verse 20 The last part of this verse, “no flesh will be justified in his sight” is taken from Genesis 6:12 and Psalm 143:2. In this verse and v. 28, Paul uses the phrase “works of Law,” and six more times in his writings. T. R. Schreiner defines this term as “doing what the Law commanded.”

Verses 21-26 have been said to be a summary of the whole gospel message. (Seifrid)

Verses 21-31 Davidson and Martin say that Paul describes the righteousness of God in four ways:

It is apart from the law (21a)

It is attested by the law (21b)

It is provided in Christ through faith (vv. 22-25)

It is divinely just (vv. 23-31)

Verse 21 “Bears witness” is legal language. In its present context, “the righteousness of God” may include both God's intrinsic righteousness and the way He provided to make the believer righteous as well. Similarly, Stott notes the many OT references which treat God's righteousness and His salvation as parallel phrases: Ps. 71:15, 98:2; Is. 45:21; 46:13; 51:5-6; 56:1.

Verse 23 Marshall says, “Paul's statement that 'all have sinned' is no isolated remark; it sums up the teaching of [OT] Scripture on the universality of sin.” Despite what generations of preachers have stated, “falling short” here does not mean missing the mark or failing to hit the target. It simply means 'absent' or 'lacking.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) Other texts expressing the same idea that is in this verse include: Eccl. 7:20; Lam. 3:39; I Kings 8:46; I John 1:8; II Chron. 6:36; Job 14:4; Ps. 14:1-3; and Prov. 20:9.

Verse 24 Rupprecht notes that this verse has been understood alternatively as either teaching universal salvation or salvation to those who believe in Christ. It all depends on whether “they/all” of this verse refers back to all who believe (v. 22) or all those who sin (v.23). In Rom. 11:32, “all” refers to both Gentiles and Jews, thus all humanity.

Verse 25 Much could be said, and has been said, regarding the exact meaning of the Greek word hilesterion, which appears in Paul's writings only here. The two basic meanings this word has elsewhere are an object given as a gift of propitiation or the “mercy seat,” the place of atonement in the tabernacle where “the God of Israel met his repentant people...in forgiving mercy.” (Brauch) Link and Brown claim that the more recent understanding is that in this verse it refers to the atoning value of innocent blood shed (as in II Maccabees). They do not feel that the “mercy seat” interpretation is correct since then the definite article would have been used before the noun, as in Hebrews 9:5. By contrast, McGrath says that “mercy seat” is starting to be the current understanding of the term rather than expiation (satisfying God's wrath) or propitiation (making amends for sin). Gundry-Volf agrees and explains that it means that Christ is the antitype of the altar in Leviticus

Verses 27-31 are called by Seifrid a “brief transitional statement” used by Paul to prepare the reader for the following argument in ch. 4.

Verse 27 “Boasting” is an important word in Romans, appearing also in 2:17-23; 4:1-8; 5:1-11; and 8:12-39. In this case, “law” means a general principle.

Verse 28 Kaiser explains that it is not the law that Paul is objecting to here (after all, see v. 31),only legalism by which men attempt to establish their own righteousness in observing the law.

Verse 30 Some commentators see a distinction in meaning between “by faith” and “through faith” in this verse, but Harris states that there is really no difference in meaning here between the two terms. Thus, justification comes by the same means for both Jew and Gentile.

By putting together some of the above observations and considering the repetition of key words, one can arrive at the following symmetrical arrangement of the material in this chapter:

The Structure of Romans 3

A. Jew and Gentile: Four Rhetorical Questions (vv. 1-8)

    B. The “Writings” Attest to the Unrighteousness of Man (vv. 9-20)

        1. “Under the Power of Sin” (v. 9)

            2. Violation of the First Great Commandment (vv. 10-12a)

                3. Violations of the Second Great Commandment (vv. 12b-17)

            2'. Violation of the First Great Commandment (v. 18)

        1'. “Under the Law” (vv. 19-20)

    B'. The “Law and the Prophets” Attest to the Righteousness of God (vv. 21-27)

        1. Righteousness through Faith in Jesus (vv. 21-22)

            2. All Have Sinned (v. 23)

                3. Grace through Christ's Atoning Act (vv. 24-25a)

            2'. God Passed Over Previous Sins (v. 25b)

        1'. Justification through Faith in Jesus (v. 26)

A'. Jew and Gentile: Four Rhetorical Questions (vv. 27-31)

 

PROVERBS 31:10-31 UPDATED

In approaching biblical passages involving women in order to get the Christian perspective on gender roles today, there is a huge culture divide to navigate across. We perhaps see this most prominently in some of Paul's teachings regarding the proper place for women, especially wives, in the home and in church services. In that case, even very traditionalist commentators realize that his teachings regarding modest modes of dress cannot be just handed down as fiats for all time. For example, it has been quite a while since I have seen any women in church wearing a hat.

So it is of interest to re-investigate the example of the ideal wife found at the end of the book of Proverbs. Some useful information regarding this acrostic poem is found in the post entitled “Proverbs 30:10-31.” However, I would like to bring this hymn of praise up to date, or at least see if it needs to be updated at all. But rather than jump right to the 21^st century, let us start back in the good old days before society began to fall apart entirely.

I am speaking of the 1950's, the Ozzie and Harriet era (look them up in Google if you don't know what I am talking about). The traditional nuclear family consisted of a working husband, a stay-at-home mother, and 2 ½ kids. In fact, my own family could have been the model for the Nelson family, except for that half-kid. If you have ever seen that TV show or Father Knows Best, for example, you will in fact note that the fathers had some places of nebulous employment that they were never at, although Ozzie did seem to spent most of his time talking to his neighbor or down at the Emporium, whatever that was, puttering around and visiting with his other friends. And Harriet may have done some housework and cooking, but whatever work it was, she managed to do it without wrinkling her pressed blouse or mussing up her perfectly pleated dress or her coiffure. Is that in fact the model that we see portrayed in Proverbs 31? In some ways yes, and in others no.

Regarding the husband's role in the marriage, Proverbs 31 actually doesn't say what he does to justify his existence. However, he is to be found down by the city gates shooting the bull with the other responsible men of the community. Sounds like this fits Ozzie to a tee. But it is doubtful that this is the biblical image any right-minded Christian would claim as today's biblical norm.

Next, let's compare the Virtuous Woman with Mrs. Nelson. In marked contrast to Harriet, she appears to be the CEO of a number of enterprises including viticulture and the selling of handcrafted garments. And although she has employees reporting to her, she refuses to delegate all of the mundane jobs to them. Instead, she personally does all the food shopping, spins thread and weaves it into clothing for her family and for sale in the market place. She works from before sunup to after sundown. Verse 27 understates the situation by saying, “She does not eat the bread of idleness.” I don't really think that Harriet could have kept up that hectic pace, at least not without losing her composure or breaking a sweat.

The Virtuous Woman is not a working wife who ignores the needs of her children either. She also manages to provide the spiritual and physical needs of her family, and they bless her for it. In addition to all of this, she manages to find time to devote to charitable activities. Harriet (at least the TV variety) is certainly a moral person and obviously loves her children, but I can't really picture her spending much time volunteering at church or at a soup kitchen.

So there appears to be a rather large disconnect between the biblical image of the perfect woman and that pictured in the “good old days.” And surprisingly, the direction of disconnect is not what one would have predicted since the biblical woman is a much more liberated one than traditionalists would seem to hold up as the ideal.

What about today's woman? Working wives are much more the norm than back in the 50's, and the portrait painted in Proverbs is not that different from today's practice. And if they are “stay-at-home” moms, they are certainly just as busy as as the Virtuous Woman, juggling carpools, soccer practice, parent-teacher meetings, etc.

One of the major differences today in marriage roles is that the men are usually more likely to share the household and parenting duties with the wife than they did in biblical times. And I hardly think that trend represents any sort of diminution in moral values.

So far, I see little need to update the biblical ideal of feminine roles found in Proverbs 31. But that does not include the various combinations and permutations found in today's marriages, including stay-at-home dads, single parents, cohabiting couples, married gays or lesbians, menage-a-trois arrangements, etc. None of these is addressed in Proverbs 30, even though certain of these situations are labeled as sinful in other portions of Scripture. But for male-female married couples, my own conclusion is that the ideal portrayed in Proverbs is still a good one to shoot for, at least in regard to the woman's role.

None of the above directly answers the question as to whether Christian egalitarians or complementarians are more correct in their understanding of how a marriage should operate. And that is probably just as well since each marriage is really unique. I feel that no single model should be touted as the only way a couple should relate to one another. That would be to put a straight-jacket on the God-given gifts that each party brings to the table when they join together in marriage.