HUMOR IN THE BIBLE

 used to have a book in my library entitled Humor in the Bible, which I enjoyed reading enough that I decided to teach a Sunday school class on the subject. I must admit that it was the worst disaster I have ever experienced teaching, so bad that I threw away the book. Have you ever told a joke to a group and no one laughed? That was the problem I had. In fact, one woman in the class spoke up and said, “But none of that is really funny.”

Since I can't believe that my material was that bad or that I just suffer from poor delivery, I will have to blame my audience. One factor that I think is partially the cause is that when people enter the church property, they sometimes think that they have to put on their sober and pious faces. I am glad that the pastor at our current church has a great sense of humor and demonstrates it time and time again in his sermons. Another factor may have to do with regional differences. I was raised on the “left coast” where our usual form of humor often took the form of rather sarcastic put-downs and physical slapstick. By contrast, “church folk” especially in the mid-west tend to look down on that sort of humor. And many women would probably agree with my wife that engaging in that sort of thing is cruel and constitutes “typical male humor.”

I would have to agree with some of the above criticisms except for the inescapable fact that many of the people that God chose to be his chosen representatives engaged in all sorts of “male humor.” As I said, I don't have my book on humor anymore, but below are some examples off the top of my head that demonstrate everything from mildly amusing stories to downright slapstick found in the Bible. I don't care if you refuse to laugh or even smile at any of these, I happen to think they are funny anyway.

Back-and-forth Middle Eastern banter is practiced there even today, especially when negotiations are taking place. They actually enjoy the process as much as the final conclusion, as I found out from a Palestinian friend of mine. By contrast, we Americans tend to just state our bottom line and say, “Take it or leave it.” It is in that light that we should understand stories such as the conversation between Jesus and the Gentile woman in Mark 7:24-30 where she asks him to cast out an unclean spirit from her daughter.

As I explained in my post “Acting Out the Bible,” you should really imagine each party speaking with a little smile on their face, otherwise Jesus will come across as being unbelievably harsh on the woman since he at first refuses her request and even calls her a “dog” (the Greek word probably refers more to a puppy). When he says that it is not fitting that food intended for children should be given to dogs instead, her quick and self-deprecating reply is “Even the dogs under the table eat of the crumbs that fall to the ground.” Matthew's version of this story ends with Jesus saying that it is her faith that makes him give in to her request, but I prefer Mark's earlier account in which Jesus grants her wish “because of that saying.” In other words, Jesus enjoyed her witty come-back. By the way, I don't think that there was any doubt how the matter would turn out in the end, but I think they just enjoyed the process.

Another serious negotiation takes place at the gates of Hebron between Abraham and Ephron (Genesis 23). The conversation between the two parties may sound a little confusing to us today unless we try to put ourselves in their ancient setting. I will briefly paraphrase the negotiations as follows:

    The Hittites: Take any of our tombs and use it to bury your people in.

    Abraham: You are being too kind, but if you really want to help me out, just convince Ephron to sell me at full price, no discount, the cave of Machpelah which is at the end of his field.

    (The Hittites talk to Ephron)

    Ephron to Abraham (with the Hittites listening in): To show all of you what a generous man I am, I will give you that cave, free and clear.

    Abraham: I don't think you are listening to you. I want to purchase the cave fair and square.

    Ephron: Well OK, but don't say later that I wasn't generous. If you really insist on buying it, you can have it for only... (and he names an outrageously high price).

In that manner, Ephron has both maintained his honor with his countrymen and forced Abraham to pay a huge amount of money or suffer loss of face with the Hittites. Not exactly a joke that causes you to guffaw, but still an amusing dialogue.

Another type of humor in the Bible would probably be labeled “black humor” or “gallows humor.” One such story is found in Judges 3:12-30 in which Moab has been harassing Israel, and so God sends Ehud to revenge the Jews. He talks his way into the Moabite citadel and approaches the very corpulent king Eglon with a supposed secret. Eglon leads him into the royal privy and shuts the door. Then Ehud buries a sword into his fat midriff, and the contents of Eglon's bowels gush out. Ehud manages to escape and locks the door behind him. The guards note the smell coming out of the privy and don't unlock the door since they think that the king is just relieving himself. By the time that they do open the door, Ehud has had time to escape from the city. Is that funny? Most of us would probably say"no" and wonder why in the world all that gory detail was put into the Bible. But no doubt to a Jewish reader of those times it would have been a hilarious story because it made fun of the Moabites with their obese and gullible king.

The prophets were even more obvious in their put-downs of those who transgressed God's laws, whether they were Gentiles or Jews. Those criticisms often took the form of sarcasm, especially in their “taunt songs.” A good example from one of the earliest prophets, Elijah, is when he held the contest on Mt. Carmel with the priests of Baal concerning who could bring down fire down from heaven. After the pagan priests have been trying with all their might to convince their god to do it, Elijah says to them, “Pray louder! He is a god. Maybe he is day-dreaming or relieving himself, or perhaps he's gone off on a trip. Or maybe he's sleeping and you've got to wake him up!” (I Kings 18:27 TEV) Of course, the image of a real god doing any of those things is totally ludicrous.

Sometimes the prophetic criticisms are subtle enough they they have been interpreted in entirely the wrong way by readers who feel that every word in the Bible must be taken as the literal truth. A prime example is the taunt song delivered by Ezekiel (Chapter 28) concerning the king of Tyre. His greatness is extolled in highly exaggerated terms such as his existence in Eden walking among precious jewels. My paraphrase of v. 15 is “You were perfectly sinless – until you weren't.” It is not surprising that some fundamentalist commentators say that Ezekiel was obviously talking about Satan himself (although i must admit that the king of Tyre may be considered as a type of Satan). Read the rest of the chapter for yourself and see if a literal interpretation makes any sense at all if it refers to Satan.

God delivers a similar taunt song to Job in chs. 38-41 exposing his lack of knowledge of even physical realities, let alone spiritual ones. None of it would be considered humorous by any stretch of the imagination, other than perhaps the fact that it conjures up the ridiculous image of a totally ignorant human questioning an omnipotent and omniscient God regarding the propriety of His actions. But 38:21 is a good example of sarcastic humor when God says to Job, “You obviously know all these secrets of creation since you are so old. You must have been present when I made the universe.” This is quite similar to Ezekiel telling the King of Tyre that he was present in the Garden of Eden.

The wisdom books provide another good source for traditional Jewish humor whether it is the picture of a jewel in a pig's snout (Proverbs 11:22) or the wry saying in Ecclesiastes 11:8: “No matter how long you live, you will be dead a whole lot longer.” I once gave a fellow chemist a small paperback with Ecclesiastes in the TEV version. He read it and told me that verse was both the funniest and truest thing he had ever heard.

Some of Jesus' sayings and parables are just as humorous as those in the Wisdom Literature. Who can forget the image of someone with a log in their eye trying to take a splinter out of someone else's eye (Matthew 19:24), the picture of a Pharisee carefully straining his drink so that he doesn't accidentally eat a gnat while then gobbling down a whole camel (Matthew 23:24), or a camel trying to squeeze through a needle's eye (Matthew 19:24). And by the way, anyone who still tries to hold on to the old outdated explanation that there was a gate in Jerusalem called the Camel's Gate obviously does not understand the concept of hyperbole in the least.

Getting back to the Old Testament, one incident that always brings a smile to my face is when David pretends that he is crazy in order to escape without harm from the city of Gath where he had hoped to find refuge from Saul. King Achish of Gath says to his servants, “This man is obviously mad but you have given him an audience with me. Don't I already have enough madmen in my kingdom that you have to bring me another one?” (I Samuel 21:12-15)

The story of Balaam and his donkey is another amusing one in which an angel of God tries to stop the prophet in his tracks by standing in the middle of the road. Even the dumb beast is smart enough to see the angel and try to avoid it while Balaam remains totally oblivious. Even more ridiculously, Balaam starts arguing with the donkey and doesn't even note that the animal is talking back to him. Balaam is a prime example of an anti-prophet, in the same way that Abimelech is an anti-judge and Judas is an anti-apostle. (Numbers 22:22-35)

I happen to agree with those commentators who feel that although the overall story of Jonah converting the city of Nineveh is historically true, the manner in which the tale is told has to be taken as a broad satire of all self-satisfied Jews who wouldn't have minded if the rest of humanity was wiped out. Every bit in the narrative is so over-the-top that it was obviously constructed to make fun of those sort of people in humorous terms. These details describe a prophet who:

    hops a boat in order to get beyond the range of God's sphere of influence,

    suggests to the pagan sailors that they throw him overboard so that they will bear the guilt for his death rather than himself,

    is so unpalatable to the sea beast that it vomits him up on the beach,

    manages to get even the cows of Nineveh to repentance,

    sits on a hill and pouts when he realizes that God isn't going to destroy them after all,

    and loves the vine that shelters him much more than all the people of Nineveh.

It has been pointed out that everyone and everything in the story including the wind and the worm that eats the vine obey God perfectly, except Jonah himself.

The gospel accounts contain a number of examples of ironic statements that may not be exactly called humor but should at least provoke a knowing smile. One is found in John 11:49-52 when Caiaphas tries to justify the act of framing an innocent man, Jesus, by saying that “it is better to have one man die for the people than have the whole nation destroyed.” John points out that even though Caiaphas intended his words in an entirely different way, he was really prophesying the importance of Christ's atoning death for all.

In the same way, Jesus is taunted while on the cross with the words: “He saved others but he can't save himself. Let him come down from the cross and we will believe him.” (Matthew 27:42)  Of course, the irony exists in the fact that if he had come down from the cross he wouldn't have been able to save others.

Paul was not beyond engaging in humor on occasion even though it was usually rather biting sarcasm. When the Judaizers are insisting that even Gentile Christians need to be circumcised, Paul replies that if they are that knife-happy, they shouldn't just stop there but go ahead and castrate themselves. (Galatians 5:12) Then, in Acts 23:1-5, when he is brought before the Sanhedrin, the high priest Ananias orders others to strike him on the mouth. Paul replies by calling Ananias a “whitewashed wall,” and the horrified onlookers inform Paul that he has just insulted the high priest, of all people. Paul innocently replies, “Oh, I didn't realize that he was the high priest. If I had known, of course I wouldn't have talked in that way.” The humor comes from the fact that there was no way that Paul would not have known who was giving the orders. Paul is in fact saying, “From the way he has been treating me, I didn't for the world figure that a real high priest would act in that manner.” But he manages to express his view of the whole proceedings without getting himself into any further trouble.

For those of you who have been valiantly reading this far still looking for a glimpse of humor where you don't see any, all I can offer now are my two favorite examples.

For a prime example of slapstick worthy of the Three Stooges, there is the scene in Acts 19:13-16 where some itinerant Jewish exorcists start parroting Paul's words as a sort of magic spell to cast out demons. One such evil spirit replies: “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” and promptly strips them of their clothes and beats them up. It is a very funny story if you like crude male humor like I do.

Finally, there is the hilarious scene described in Acts 12:12-16 in which Peter has just escaped at night from prison and he pounds on the door of the house where the rest of the Apostles are praying for Peter's release from certain death. The servant Rhoda asks who it is and recognized Peter by his reply. She is so flustered that she forgets to open the door but instead rushes back to interrupt the prayer meeting to spread the good news. Even though they have been fervently praying for this very event, they are totally unbelieving when their prayers are actually answered. All of them argue back and forth while poor Peter is left out in the cold hoping that the prison guards won't find him and bring him back to prison. It is a piece of absurdist humor that could have easily formed the basis of a Monty Python sketch.

 

EZEKIEL 40-48

I am probably not alone in wondering why God put these nine chapters in the Bible. And after consulting a number of scholarly sources on this subject, I am still not sure. Let me start out by looking at how this extended passage fits into the overall Book of Ezekiel.

In an earlier post (“The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) I offered the following symmetrical outline which may serve as a useful travel map to follow the intricate pathway followed in these extended vision. Also, many good commentaries and study Bibles will even contain a building plan of the temple described here.

Figure 1: The Structure of Ezekiel 40-48

1. The city of God and its entrances (40:1-16)

2. Temple area survey (40:17-42:20)

a. Outer court (40:17-27)

b. Inner court (40:28-47)

c. Vestibule, nave and inner room (40:48-41:4)

d. Overall temple area (41:5-15a)

c'. Vestibule, nave and inner room (41:15b-26)

b'. Inner court (42:1-14)

a'. Outer court (42:15-20)

3. God's glory; priestly ordinances (ch. 43)

3'. God's glory; priestly ordinances (44:1-27)

2'. Land survey (44:28-48:29)

a. Allotment of land (44:28-45:8)

b. Honest government for the people (45:9-12)

c. Offerings/feasts (45:13-25)

d. Prince's offerings (46:1-18)

c'. Preparation of offerings (46:19-24)

b'. Restored fertility to the land (47:1-12)

a'. Allotment of land (47:13-48:29)

1'. The city of God and its exits (48:30-35)

Although the overall organization of the Book of Ezekiel is rather complex compared to most other books in the Bible, below is my best guess as to how it is structured.

Figure 2: The Structure of the Book of Ezekiel

Section A (1-3)

DIVISION I                                         Section B (4-7)

Section C (8-11)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIVISION II                           Section D (12-24)

                                                                                    Section E (25-32)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section F (33-37)

DIVISION III                                     Section G (38-39)

                                                Section H (40-48)

Note that the final section has its closest parallel with chapters 8-11. Both units begin with the phrase “the hand of the LORD came upon me” used to introduce what Ezekiel calls “divine visions.” Sections C and H also share a common framework in which the prophet is transported to a different site in order to view something. There is a secondary heavenly personage in addition to Yahweh who interacts with the prophet in both these sections. Also, as Mason notes, “The final section of the book echoes the vision of the defiling of the temple in Ezekiel 8-11.” However, there is a complete contrast between the polluted temple of chs. 8-11 and the perfect temple in chs. 40-48. Therefore, God's action in removing his presence from the people in chs. 10-11 will be reversed in the future, as promised in chs. 43-44.

The next closest literary unit according to Figure 2 consists of chapters 33-37. Thus, Jensen notes that the temple on a high mountain “is the polar opposite of the valley of dry bones (Ezek 37:1-14) in Ezekiel's theological geography.”

John Walvoord conveniently summarizes five different approaches to understanding this vision:

    1. It was intended to give the specifications for building Solomon's temple.

    2. It laid out the details for those returning from the Exile to rebuild the Jerusalem temple.

    3. This was an ideal which the returning pilgrims should have observed but did not.

    4. It is a type fulfilled by the church in the present age.

    5. It describes the temple which will exist during the millennial period.

This last explanation is that expressed by dispensationalists such as Walvoord. He states, “Premillennialism instead of denying the spiritual character of the millennium affirms the high standard of spiritual life which in many respects is far above any previous dispensation.” That may, in fact, be the belief of all premillennialists, but many of them would certainly draw the line at defining that period in the same detailed manner as dispensational premillennialists do, with its resumption of animal sacrifices in the temple.

Some additional comments on the above options are as follows:

    Approach #1: If this view is correct, then why didn't Solomon utilize that blueprint at all? Cook apparently feels that this section of Ezekiel was actually written after Solomon's time and the blueprint was based loosely on the temple of that time “although the plan is more detailed than that given in I Kings 6 and II Chronicles 3.”

    Approach #3: I am not exactly sure who expresses the idealist view in the particular way that Walvoord defines it above. It appears to be more of a straw man he erects in order to knock it down. So without agreeing with Walvoord that the returning exiles should have observed this ideal, here is how some scholars weigh in on this view:

Chisholm says that “Ezekiel's vision is contextualized for his sixth-century B.C. audience. He describes the reconciliation of God and his people in terms that would be meaningful to this audience...a rebuilt temple, reinstitution of the sacrificial system, the renewal of the Davidic dynasty, and the return and reunification of the twelve exiled tribes.” He concludes that “we should probably view it as idealized to some extent and look for an essential, rather than an exact fulfillment of many of its features.” Thus, his view includes features of both approaches 3 and 5, an historical premillennial position.

In a somewhat similar manner, Cook says, “This section of Ezekiel does not prophesy a literal future for the Temple; rather, it offers a Temple plan as an embodiment of the community's values.”

    Approach #4: Bullock offers in favor of this possibility the fact that Jesus described his resurrection in terms of the temple (John 2:18-22) and also there are parallels between Ezekiel 40-48 and the New Jerusalem portrayed in Revelation 20-21, especially 21:22. (more on the latter below)  Martin Luther stated that the new temple pictures the kingdom of Christ surviving on the earth until its final day.

Duguid notes that the early Puritan commentator Greenhill “confessed that he found much of the detail about the temple in chapters 40-48 virtually incomprehensible, but asserted nonetheless that the overall message of this portion is a depiction of the Christian church and its worship under the figures and types of the old covenant.”

Block says, “Ezekiel's final vision presents a lofty spiritual ideal: Where God is, there is Zion. Where God is, there is order and the fulfillment of all his promises. Furthermore, where the presence of God is recognized, there is purity and holiness. Ezekiel hereby lays the foundation for the Pauline spiritualization of the temple.”

    Approach #5: Despite what Walvoord claims, Bullock says that this approach fails to take into account spiritual implications of the text and the way OT prophecies are almost always explained in the NT. Chisholm calls it the “hyper-literalist” view. And of course, it is hard to swallow any interpretation that predicts such a giant step backward theologically from the fulfillment found in the NT revelations and treats the whole New Testament era as “a mere parenthesis” in God's plan for the ethnic Jews, however one could define that group today.

Another problem with this view is pointed out by Bruce: “...some of the ritual prescriptions for the age of restoration in Ezekiel's vision (chs. 40-48) were inconsistent with those laid down in the Pentateuch, and no harmonization seems possible.” This is despite the fact that the rabbi Hananiah (ca. AD 70-100) is said to have labored nightly on the problem burning 300 jars of oil until he had found a way to eliminate the discrepancies. Unfortunately, we do not have the results of his labors today.

    Approach #6: Bullock adds the apocalyptic view to the five described above. He explains that it is related to but goes beyond Approach #4 in terms of breaking out beyond the bounds of OT theology of the times. As Bullock says, “Further, some future realities transcend the ability of human language to describe them, so the familiar and fundamental realities of Israel's life become the basis for representing the indescribable.” Ellison agrees that one must “recognize the essentially eschatological character of these chapters. In the symbolism of exact conformity to divine plan and law we are shown God's people ultimately conforming perfectly to His purposes.” “The vision merges mythic space with historical geography and then situates the prophet in this transformed space.” (Odell)  F.F. Bruce: “...a purified people implies a purified land, and this is the subject of Ezekiel's last vision. Within the holy land lies the holy city, and alongside the holy city, but separate from it, stands the new temple, the holiest place of all...”

As an apt conclusion to this continuing debate, Cook summarizes the situation: “Though it has never been actually built, Ezekiel's 'literary temple' has proved more enduring than the physical temples of both his predecessors and his successors.”

One way in which his “literary temple” has survived is in its complete and final reincarnation in the glorious vision of Revelation 21-22. Here are some of the correspondences between the two visions:

    In the same way that the picture of the New Jerusalem concluding John's Revelation follows right after the Gog prophecy of Revelation 20:7-10, the Gog oracle of Ezekiel 38-39 directly precedes the temple vision that concludes that book.

    1. In both books, the author is transported to a high mountain.

    2. Both visions describe a new world with Jerusalem at its center.

    3. God dwells in the midst of his people in both passages and blesses them.

    4. The glory of God is said to be in each city.

    5. A heavenly being measures the dimensions of the cities.

    6. The city plans of each include high walls and twelve gates, on for each tribe

   7.  In both visions, a stream issues from the temple and becomes a river for the land. Trees grow on each side of this river and the leaves are for healing.

It appears obvious from these strong similarities that God revealed to Ezekiel a vision of the final days portrayed in terms that would be understood by a Jewish audience of the times. However, John's vision, as similar as it may be, is subtly changed so as to reflect the further NT perspective on that future reality. And since they both are describing the same events, it is the New Heaven and Earth being portrayed in both, not some intermediate 1,000-year period.

Jacques Ellul begins to explain some crucial differences between the two pictures as follows:

“These two apocalyptic visions were on the same subject, but were seen and understood differently. Ezekiel announces that he sees a city (ch. 40), but it is never again mentioned...until the final lines of Chapter 48.” “...his emphasis is clearly on the sanctuary...God's dwelling place. But in John's vision everything is centered in the city. He says nothing of the Temple. On the contrary it is strongly emphasized that there is no Temple.” “...there is no contradiction between these two visions. They are coherent. What is important is the statement of God's total and exclusive presence – first his presence in the Temple, and then, when the messianic conception had developed, in the entire city.”

Secondly, although the gates of the city in Ezekiel and Revelation have the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel inscribed on them, the foundation stones of the latter vision also include the names of the Twelve Apostles.

Block enumerates additional ways in which Ezekiel's vision differs from the picture of the New Jerusalem: the city is unnamed, it is square rather than cubical, and it is only constructed of stones.

The Messiah is not even mentioned as being present in Ezekiel's vision while He, with the Father, forms the center point of John's New Jerusalem. There is a mysterious person called the Prince in the former vision who acts as a wealthy patron to the people in providing most of the animal offerings needed for the constant sacrifices required in the temple. He is even given his own plot of land outside the city. In order to salvage a strictly literal fulfillment of the OT prophecies of an eternal Davidic kingdom, Walvoord explains that the Prince is in fact the resurrected King David, although Ezekiel does not mention him doing any ruling at all.

Other details in Ezekiel's vision, if treated quite literally as do the dispensational premillennialists, are totally inconsistent with NT teachings given to both Jews and Gentiles, and represent a huge step backward from the New Covenant perspective as if Christ had not at all died for their sins. That is not at all unexpected considering the dispensationalist insistence that the NT era that we live in is only a temporary blip in God's more important plan for the ethnic Jews which will be resumed in the 1,000-year period yet in the future. Some of these inconsistencies include:

    Various gates in the Ezekiel temple complex are shut periodically to restrict access to all but the Zadokite priesthood to the Holy of Holies containing God's presence (Ezekiel 42:14; 44:2; 46:1). This is in marked contrast to NT teachings which say that Christ has broken down any barriers between man and God, and believers now have free access to Him and constitute a Holy Priesthood. Also note that in John's vision, the gates to the city are never shut. A literal fulfillment of Ezekiel's vision would require the presence of Jews whose DNA proves that they were descendents of Zadok. Actually, with all the intermarriage carried out over the centuries, there is a good chance that most men of Jewish heritage probably have at least a little Zadokite in them.

    Special precautions must be taken by the priests regarding their change of clothing after sacrificial offering and the route that the offerings are to take through the temple complex in order to prevent God's holiness from being communicated to the people (Ezekiel 44:19; 46:20). However, the very purpose of Christ's sacrifice was to allow all believers to become sanctified, i.e. holy.

    Whereas Christ conclusively broke down the barrier separating Jew from Gentile for all time, it is said that access to Ezekiel's temple is banned to non-Jews (Ezekiel 44:6-9) or at least restricted to what was called the Court of the Gentiles in the temple of Jesus' day (Ezekiel 42:20).

    Observation of all the Jewish festivals, new moons and sabbaths is to be carried out (Ezekiel 45:17) despite the fact that Paul bawls out those believers who insist that those very same events be observed. Paul's comment is that they are only shadows of what has come already in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

    As mentioned earlier, one of the most serious barriers to taking Ezekiel's vision as a literal description of what will and should happen in the future is the resumption of animal sacrifices in the temple. Walvoord and other dispensationalist feel that they can easily deal with that problem by merely stating that these sacrifices will only be carried out as a memorial commemorating what Christ has already accomplished on the cross. In other words, it is like a communion service, just a bit bloodier. Fortunately, there will apparently be no natural death of animals during the millennial period, according to a literal interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy, and so there will be lots of animals available to dispose of by other means.

Enough sarcasm! Getting back to Walvoord's explanation for the reason for sacrifices, it really doesn't hold water when you look at the references to animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48, if taken literally as the dispensationalist say they do. Rather than being an elaborate communion service to remind the people of Christ's past sacrifice on their behalf, here is what we find:

    Sacrifices are made on behalf of the people (44:11), specifically for the house of Israel only (45:17).

    They are offered directly to God, not a reminder to ourselves (44:15).

    And they are necessary in order to atone for sins (45:20).

Since the New Jerusalem has the Lamb himself in its midst, there is obviously no additional reminder of his sacrifice needed for us.

In conclusion, there is a somewhat complex relationship between the two visions, both coming from God. The many similarities indicate that the same basic situation is being described in both, but the pertinent differences demonstrate, as elsewhere when considering NT fulfillment of OT prophecies, that the Jews of the Old Covenant were only given a mere hint of the reality more fully revealed to the inspired writers of the New Testament. And the true reality will only be glimpsed by us at the Last Days.

 

NOTES ON PHILIPPIANS

Philippians 1:9-11 see Colossians 1:9-12

 

Philippians 1:10 "approve what is excellent" explains "discerned" in verse 9.

 

Philippians 1:19 not the usual word for “help”

 

Philippians 1:23 “I am bounded by these two realities (my life and my death) which I keep in mind at 

the same time."

 

Philippians 1:29 "It has been granted", i.e. suffering is a gift.

 

Philippians 2:1-5 Those who give to others must first have received from God. (Ernest Jones)

 

Philippians 2:6 "Highly exalted" includes the resurrection and "a full emphasis upon the victory of 

Christ and His installation in the seat of power and might." Same usage as in 1 Peter 3:18ff.

"Made himself independent of God" is the meaning supported by a rabbinical parallel referring to a son 

who rejects parental authority. (Ralph Martin) Also see John 5:18.

 

Philippians 2:9-11 This passage is felt by some to be parallel to Revelation 5:1-14.

Enthronement ceremony consists of elevation (9a), proclamation of the name (9b), and homage by 

gesture and confession (10-11). The same three elements are found in Hebrews 1:5-14 and Matthew 

28:18-20, according to Jeremias. There is a parallel to v. 10 in Revelation 5:13.

 

Philippians 2:15 “crooked...generation” is a quote from Deuteronomy. 32:5, which hearkens back to 

the complaints of the people in the wilderness.

 

Philippians 3:1-2 v. 1. same = either the previous letter or the subject of rejoicing.

"Dogs" was often used by Jews to refer to Gentiles. Here it describes the Judaizers.

 

Philippians 3:16 lit. “keep in step with”

 

Philippians 3:20-21 

v. 20. commonwealth = citizenship. This was a good image for the Philippians 

who were Roman colonists in an alien land.

v. 21. lowly = of low condition, not sinful or vile (KJV). For this change, see II Corinthians 5:1-5 and

I Corinthians 15:35-50.

 

Philippians 4 Gary Collins: principles on dealing with stress are given here. Be helpful to others, be 

thankful, be gentle and loving, don't be anxious, dwell on the positive, change your behavior (v. 9).

Philippians 4:1 The word for crown is not diadem but a word meaning a victor's wreath.

 

Philippians 4:2-3 

v. 2. Each one is addressed separately and equally.

v. 3. "yokefellow"   Questions concern whether this is perhaps a proper name or refers to Paul's wife.

 

Philippians 4:10-23 This passage contains Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: physical needs, the need 

for safety, acceptance (love and belonging), purpose (significance), and maturity (self-actualization).

 

THE LITERARY INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE

If my past experiences in the church are any guide, I would be willing to bet that this is a subject that few people other than myself are really interested in. It seems as if those who enjoy reading and studying the classics of world literature or admiring cutting-edge art have little interest in the Bible. On the other hand, those who are very serious about studying the Bible sometimes are rather dismissive of any art other than the productions of Thomas Kinkade (aka “the Painter of Light”) and any literature beyond the “Left Behind” series of novels. I will admit that to be my rather cynical and elitist opinion.

Let's start with the undisputed fact that the Bible has had a huge influence on novelists and playwrights over the years, from Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress to modern writers, some of whom read like a who's who of Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winners. While it is impossible to list all the biblical allusions in these works, just look at those whose titles come straight out of the Bible (with biblical sources given in parentheses).

Starting with the three who are usually considered among the greatest 20^th century American novelists, we have:

    Faulkner:     Go Down Moses (Exodus 3-4, by way of an old spiritual)

                        Absalom, Absalom (II Samuel 19:4)

    Steinbeck:  The Grapes of Wrath (Revelation 14:17-20, by way of a patriotic hymn)

                       To a God Unknown (Acts 17:23)

                       East of Eden (Genesis 3:24)

Hemingway:  The Sun Also Rises (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Then there are:

    William Golding:         The Lord of the Flies (“Baalzebub” II Kings 1:2-6)

    Graham Greene:          The Power and the Glory (Matthew 6:13)

    Henry James:               The Golden Bowl (Ecclesiastes 12:6)

    Aldous Huxley:           Eyeless in Gaza (Judges 12:21)

    Arthur Koestler:          Darkness at Noon (Matthew 27:45)

    Eugene O'Neill:           Lazarus Laughed (John 11)

    Lillian Hellman:         The Little Foxes (Song of Song 2:15)

    Flannery O'Connor:    The Violent Bear It Away (Matthew 11:12)

The title of the recently discovered To Kill a Mockingbird sequel, Go Set a Watchman, is a quotation from Isaiah 21. Other masterpieces of literature are permeated with allusions to the Bible:

Moby Dick-- characters with improbable but symbolic names such as Ishmael and Ahab, a whole chapter devoted to a sermon on the Book of Jonah, and an ending with a resurrection scene and a quotation from Job.

Light in August by William Faulkner has 21 chapters patterned on the 21 chapters of John's Gospel. One major character, Joe Christmas parallels Jesus Christ, and there is an unmarried pregnant woman traveling with a man who is not the father of the child. Many other correspondences with the Gospel story have been pointed out by critics.

Some works are even retellings of Scripture stories such as Archibald MacLeish's Pulitzer Prize-winning play J.B. about Job, John Steinbeck's East of Eden, and Thomas Mann's Joseph and His Brothers. The last one is a series of four novels written over 16 years and it is very true to the biblical account. That is not true, on the other hand, with the other two works, which pervert the original stories to make entirely different points than the Bible does. At the end of J.B., Job rejects God and his gifts, and goes off to build a new life with his wife rather than worship God. Similarly, East of Eden casts Cain as the most sympathetic character, the son who only tries to please his father but is continually being rejected in favor of his more pious brother.

Another illuminating example comes from consideration of the man who has been called the greatest novelist of the 20^th century – the Irish writer James Joyce. His final novel, the flawed masterpiece entitled Finnegans Wake, is perhaps the least readable of any book ever written. It is composed in a conglomeration of different languages, mostly English, with the individual words being a hodgepodge of several different words, and every page contains diverse references to world history and culture. So it is no surprise that I was able to easily find 1,600 references to the Bible in the book, an average of almost three per page. And I know that I overlooked many others that are probably present.

The title comes from an Irish drinking song which tells the story of Tim Finnegan, a drunken hod carrier who falls from a ladder and breaks his skull. However, at the wake, the festivities get a little out of hand and some whiskey spills on Tim. That brings him back to life, and he proceeds to bawl out the guests. This image is obviously a rather perverted one of Christ's death and resurrection. And whereas Christ died once only, Finnegan seems to die over and over again in the novel. This fact could easily reflect Joyce's Catholic background with the death of Christ repeated in each celebration of the mass.

It is also interesting to look at the start and conclusion to Joyce's novel. It begins: “riverrun, past Eve and Adam's” as an obvious allusion to the beginning chapters of Genesis (although it also refers to the name of a Dublin church) and then ends with the words “The keys to. Given! A way a lone a last a loved a long the” as an oblique reference to the keys to the gates of heaven being given to believers at the end of Revelation. This would seem to indicate the biblical view of a discrete beginning and end to history as we know it, if it were not for one thing. Note that there is no capital R to the beginning of Joyce's book and no period after the incomplete sentence at the end. That is because the concluding partial sentence is actually continued in the opening words of the book so that the story begins over and over again in endless cycles.

Few of the authors listed above are known to be practicing Christians, but they all appreciate the literary qualities of the Bible probably more than we as believers do. We are sometimes so busy trying to figure out what the Bible says that we have often completely ignored how it is being said – and the two are related.

As Leland Ryken says, “The one thing that the Bible is not is what Christians too often picture it as being – a theological outline with proof texts.” (Windows to the World, p. 33) Our psychological make-up includes more than just will and intellect, and that is where the wide variety of literary genres found in the Bible comes in. Yes, there are straight-forward historical accounts and lists of rules in the Bible, but in addition, God gave us: acrostics, acted-out prophecies, allegories, court proceedings, diatribes, dreams, encomiums, exalted prose, fables, genealogies, laments, last will and testaments, letters, love songs, memoirs, metaphors, monologues, parables, pastoral stories, plays, poetry, prayers, proverbs, puns, riddles, sagas, sermons, short stories, similes, taunt songs, travel diaries and visions.

When we are faced with this hodgepodge of literary types, most of us can sympathize with the apostles who were constantly being confused by Jesus' teachings. It was only right before his death that they were able to say:

At last you are speaking plainly and not in riddles. (Living Bible)

Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure of speech! (NRSV)

Now you are speaking plainly, cried the disciples, and are not using parables (Phillips)

Why, this is plain speaking; this is no figure of speech. (NEB)

                                                                                                John 16:29

You can almost hear their surprise and relief.

WHY ALL THESE VARIOUS FORMS OF LITERATURE?

What need are they filling? To explain, let's look at a classic of early American literature, Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. A married woman Hester believes her husband Roger is lost at sea and has an affair with her pastor Arthur Dimmesdale. They have a child and she is branded as an adulteress. Her husband turns up still alive and vows to seek revenge by discovering the identity of the child's father. At the end, the pastor is driven by guilt to admit his sin to the whole congregation.

My American Novel professor at UCLA explained that each one of the three main characters is missing a key component of personality: intellect, will or emotion.

For you lowbrows in the audience, an easier way to remember these three components is to consider The Wizard of Oz. The scarecrow wants a brain, the tin man wants a heart and the lion wants courage. This is actually a convenient tool for analyzing the characters in the Bible to see how well integrated their personalities are. A few years ago I was constructing some of my biblical collages, this time concerning the David and Bathsheba story, and realized that The Scarlet Letter is practically a retelling of that love triangle including its underlying themes (see my post entitled “David and Bathsheba”):

    David is a very intellectual and spiritual person, but he also has a very passionate side to him. His problem is that he is missing the willpower to keep his passions in check. 

    Uriah is intelligent and has highly developed willpower, but he comes across as being without any emotions. His job defines him.

    Bathsheba is the hardest of the three characters to read since we are not told much about her in this story. We really need to go to an incident later in her life after David has died. Adonijah asks her to petition Solomon to give him David's concubine. She agrees, but is bawled out by Solomon who has to explain to her that she is practically asking him to proclaim Adonijah as the rightful king instead of himself. Thus, her problem appears to be a lack of intellectual capacity.

For another way of looking at the three components of a balanced personality, consider 1 John and three marks of a Christian: proper doctrine (intellect), obeying the commandments (will) and loving others. The first two are addressed through rather straightforward teachings in the Bible. But what about Love? It is best illustrated in Song of Songs – poetry (romantic love), Hosea – acted out parable (God's long-suffering love of Israel), Ruth – play (familial love), Jonah – satire (God's love for all nations), parables of the prodigal son (God/parent's unconditional love) and good Samaritan (love of your enemy), and Paul's love chapter – exalted prose. Where emotions are involved, more indirect forms of literature appear to be the best way to communicate them.

There is another good reason to use indirect methods of teaching in the Bible.  Consider Jesus' comment that parables both reveal and conceal. In Hebrew thought the word for parable (mashal) was a broad term applying to all types of figurative (non-literal) language.

“Then the disciples came and asked him, 'Why do you speak to them in parables?' He answered, 'To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given...The reason I speak to them in parables is that seeing, they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand...But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.'” (Matthew 13:10-16)

The key may be that for those who are not quite ready to believe, parables delay understanding just enough so that people are forced to ponder the message, think about it longer and make the ideas their own. Parables stir the imagination, are more open-ended than literal language. They also get around your defenses. Often premature revelation of the truth will be rejected out of hand and never be considered again.

    “When the front door of reason is locked and double-bolted against the gospel, as it is for so many of our neighbors, the back door of the imagination often stands wide open.” (Sarah Arthur, Christianity Today, Dec. 2014)

    “The constructs of the imagination tell us things about human life that we don't get in any other way.” (Northrup Frye, The Educated Imagination)

    “The Bible's most customary way of expressing God's truth is not the sermon or theological outline, but the story, the poem and the vision, all of them literary forms and products of the imagination.” (Leland Ryken, Windows to the World)

Getting back to the story of David and Bathsheba, recall that the prophet Nathan didn't confront David directly concerning his sin, but told a parable instead, which was effective in waking up David's conscience. A similar device was used thousands of years later in the most famous play ever written, Shakespeare's Hamlet, a great work of literature with a plot that is actually another variation on the David and Bathsheba story. Instead of the prophet Nathan we have the hero Hamlet trying to get the king to admit his guilt. He says, “The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of a king.” (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2) C. S. Lewis said that he was converted to Christianity not so much through intellectual arguments as through the study of pagan mythology as well as the fairy tales and fantasy stories of George MacDonald.

All this has led to a movement called cultural apologetics, as opposed to propositional apologetics, which “looks at faith and reasons for faith through an interdisciplinary kaleidoscope of art, literature, film, history, theology, and philosophy.” (Holly Ordway, Christianity Today, April 2015)

This has also set the stage for a new generation of Biblical scholars in the field of what has been called “New Literary Criticism” in which they look at the books of the Bible in terms of their literary qualities just as professors of literature would study great works of fiction. Of course, that is not by any means the most meaningful way to study the Bible, but it does help us to appreciate why the great masters of world literature got much of their inspiration from it. Below are some books I would recommend for those who are interested in learning more on the subject:

Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, Vol. 1&2, Kenneth Gros Louis, ed.

The Literary Guide to the Bible, Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, ed.

The New Testament in Literary Criticism, Leland Ryken, ed.

A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III, ed.

The Literature of the Bible, Leland Ryken

He Gave Us Stories, Richard L. Pratt, Jr.

The Literature and Meaning of Scripture, Morris A. Inch and C. Hassell Bullock, ed.

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, ed.

 

ACTS 1-12: LESSON STUDY GUIDE

The Book of Acts is way too long to cover in one semester without skipping some very important content. So below is a suggested outline of a lesson plan I developed for our Sunday school class to study the first half of the book. Also given in quotes are the titles of some appropriate blog posts that you may find it helpful to consult. A suggested outline for the studying the rest of the book will be given elsewhere.

Introduction to Luke-Acts (Acts 1:1-8)

                                “The Book of Acts: Introduction to the Literary Structure”

                                “Acts 1”

Witnesses (1:9-26)

                                “Acts 1”

Tongues of Fire (2:1-47)

                              “Tongue Speaking: Pentacost (Acts 2:1-21)”

Speaking and Acting in Boldness (3:1-4:31)

                            “Acts 3-4”

All Things in Common (Acts 4:32-5:11)

                            “Acts 4-5”

Is It of God? (Acts 5:12-42)

                            “Acts 4-5”

The First Martyr (Acts 6:1-7:58a)

                            “Acts 6”

                            “Acts 7-8: Stephen”

The Blessings of Persecution (Acts 7:58b-8:40)

                            “Acts 7-8: Stephen”

                            “Acts 8:37: Faith and Baptism”

The Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-31)

                            “Acts 9-10”

The Subject is Miracles (Acts 9:32-42)

                            “Acts 9-10”

The First Gentile Converts (Acts 9:43-10:48)

                            “Acts 9-10”

Parties, Persecution and Prophets (Acts 11:1-30)

                            “Acts 11”

A Jail Break (Acts 12:1-24)

                            “Acts 12”

And To the End of the Earth: Recap and Introduction to Part II (Acts 12:25)

                        “The Book of Acts: Introduction to the Literary Structure"

There are also some miscellaneous notes on individual verses in Acts found in the post "Notes on the Book of Acts."

 

WHERE DOES THE DESIGNATION "HEBREW" COME FROM"

The chosen people of God were referred to by several names in the Bible. So before giving a somewhat non-answer to this question, let us quickly review them.

Israel

As descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, renamed Israel (meaning “he strives with God” or “God strives”) in 32:28, they were sometimes designated the tribes of Israel, Israelites, or just “Israel” (see Genesis 34:7). The earliest non-biblical reference to this name being applied to a combined people comes from an Egyptian inscription dating to around 1230 BC. (F.F. Bruce) The picture becomes a little more complicated after the period of the divided kingdom. Thus, Israel sometimes denotes the Northern Kingdom only and sometimes both north and south.

Even more confusing is what happens in New Testament times. For example, the term “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) may refer to either believing Jews only, or Christians of both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. Then we come to Paul's equally controversial statement in Romans 9:6 that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” (See my post “Will all Israel be saved?”)

Judah

Moving down one generation from Jacob/Israel, we come to his fourth son, Judah. His tribe inherited the largest area of land in the southern region of the Holy Land. It was in that manner that the Southern Kingdom was named Judah after the kingdom split in two. It was during this period that “Jew” (yehudi) first began to be used to refer to the inhabitants of Judah (beginning in II Kings 16:6). However, non-Jews used the term when referring to the descendants of all twelve tribes.

After the return from exile, the loyal Jews tended to settle in this territory, leaving the Samaritans and other mixed groups to occupy what was the Northern Kingdom. Thus, after this time “the true Jew came to be used for all descended from or identified with the ethnic or religious Jews, whatever their race or nationality” and began to parallel the much more ancient designation “Israelite.” (Ehrlich) Similarly, Yamauchi states that even the faithful remnant who lived in north of Judah but chose to worship at the temple in Jerusalem were called Jews (II Chronicles 30:1-18). And Jeremiah uses the term “Jew” to refer both to the Jews in Judah (Jeremiah 32:12) and those living in various dispersed lands as well (Jeremiah 40:11)

Moving forward to New Testament times, the meaning of “Jew” alternated between being a reference to all Israelites or used as a pejorative term for those ethnic Jews who opposed the spread of the Gospel message. One must look carefully at the contexts in which this term occurs in order to distinguish between the two meanings.

Hebrew

And then we come to the earliest designation of all for the collected people of God: Hebrew. For example, in Josephus' History of the Jews, he only uses the term “Hebrew” in his description of their early history and then “Jews” for all later periods. (Yamauchi)

D.A. Knight notes that practically all of the references to “Hebrews” in the OT are found in a context in which the name is used to distinguish the Jews from neighboring tribes, whether Israelites or non-Israelites are speaking. We even see a remnant of this meaning in the NT when it is used to distinguish Jews who have retained their Jewish culture and language rather than adopting a Greek way of life (Acts 6:1) or when Paul is addressing a primarily Greek audience concerning his own strictly orthodox Jewish upbringing (Philippians 3:5).

What is the origin of the word “Hebrew?” Both J. A. Knight and R. Mayer state that its etymology is “uncertain,” and I am sure that the other authors I consulted would wholeheartedly agree, even if they didn't chose to use that particular descriptive designation. There have been at least four separate approaches to solving this problem, and some of them may be interrelated:

1. The designation “Hebrew” (hibri) may come from the verb habar meaning “to cross over.” In that case, it would refer to the crossing over the Euphrates River (Joshua 24:3) or the Jordan River (Genesis 50:10). “The Septuagint translates 'Abram the Hebrew' in Genesis 14:13 as 'Abram, the one who crossed over.'” (Knight)  R. Meyer says that this term came to be generally applied to any outsiders.

2. Another view is that the word arises from a person named Eber, who is said to have been the grandson of Shem and the ancestor of Abraham (Genesis 10:21, 24-25; 11:14-17). One problem with this view, pointed out by Knight, is that nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that this is the source of “Hebrew.” In addition, Eber was the father of several other Middle East cultures as well as the Hebrews.

3. A third possibility often mentioned is that the etymology of the word comes from the Sumerian word hapiru, which referred to “a diverse group people with an inferior social status, living mostly on the fringes of settled civilizations from Mesopotamia to Egypt, and there is evidence of them in numerous sources throughout the second millennium B.C.E.” (Knight)   Fleming characterizes these people as a sometimes dangerous “group of social renegades.” Again, there are no sources directly linking these people with the Jews.

4. Fleming opts for the early second-millennium term habiru, which was used in Mari to refer to “the mobile community that travels in the back country with the flocks.” Mayer notes that since they did not have a permanent home or many possessions, they sometimes “entered into the service of the settled population on a contracted basis..as servants.” This could very well fit the description of the nomadic patriarchs. This view has the additional advantage over view #3 in that the consonant “p” does not have to be changed to “b,” a problem that some scholars treat as insurmountable while others have apparently found ways to easily justify.

To end this complicated history on an even more complicated note, Paul uses the terms “Hebrews,” “Israelites,” and “seed of Abraham” interchangeably in II Corinthians 11:2. So obviously the last word on this subject has not been heard quite yet.

 

DIFFICULT SAYINGS OF JESUS: LESSON PLAN

As if the parables of Jesus were not hard enough to understand, he also taught at times using rather obscure language, sometimes labeled as “dark sayings.” Below I have attempted to group many of these thematically to give a little cohesiveness to any study of this subject that you may want to undertake individually or in a group setting. A good general resource for this study is Hard Sayings of the Bible, which contains F.F. Bruce's contributions on Jesus' teachings. I have also included some of my blog posts which may be of help.

PRAYER

    moving mountains (Matthew 17:20)

SWORDS

    I have come to bring a sword (Matthew 10:34)         "Matthew 10:34-35”

    those who live by the sword (Matthew 26:52)

    take up a sword (Luke 22:36)                                     “Luke 22:35-38”

THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN (Mark 3:28-29)               “Hebrews 4-6”

                                                                                        “Notes on Mark”

                                                                                        “Mark 3:28-29”

FOR OR AGAINST?

    he who is not against us (Mark 9:40)                        “Luke 9:50 and Luke 11:23”

    he who is not for me (Luke 11:23)                                 "            "            "           

DEDICATION TO THE KINGDOM

    pluck out your eye (Mark 9:43)

    the violent take the kingdom (Matthew 11:12)

    let the dead bury the dead (Luke 9:60-62)               “Luke 9:60-62”

    hate your father and mother (Luke 15:26)

WISDOM AND INNOCENCE

    be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:15-17)                 “Matthew 10:16”

    accept as a little child (Mark 10:15)

THE LITTLE APOCALYPSE (Matthew 24:1-35)    “Matthew 24: One or Two Questions?”

                                                                                    “Matthew 24:40-41”

FORGIVENESS

    because she loved much (Luke 7:47)                     “Parable of the Two Debtors: Luke 7:36-50”

    seventy times seven (Matthew 18:21-22)

HIDDEN KINGDOM

    it is among you (Luke 17:21)                               “The Kingdom of God/Heaven”

    shall not taste death (Matthew 16:28)

OLD AND NEW

    wine in bottles (Matthew 9:15-17)                       “Luke 5:33-39”

    trained scribes (Matthew 13:51-52)

RICH AND POOR

eye of a needle (Matthew 19:21-26) “Luke 18:25 Eye of a Needle”

the poor are always with you (Matthew 26:11)

Probably any lesson on the Little Apocalypse should be divided into two parts since it is so difficult.

 

I THESSALONIANS 5:12-28

verses 12-15 “His cryptic, almost abrupt style in this section may have been intended to bring them back from considerations of the future to the realities of their immediate responsibilities.” (Constable)  It is a sad fact that groups of Christians who become fixated on discerning God's future timetable sometimes ignore God's will in their lives in the here and now.

verse 12 When A. Smith says, “The persons 'who have charge of you' are functionaries and perhaps patrons, but not officeholders,” he is expressing a minority position. Thus, Cousins considers both descriptions to refer to the elders in the church. He notes that the phrase “in the Lord” provides “the sole ground and limiting extent of authority in the church.” Constable goes even further in pointing out that a plurality of elders in each congregation is clearly indicated here. And F.F. Bruce says that “those over you” refers to church leaders such as pastors, elders, and bishops. On the other hand, Elias interprets the role as neither a specified church office nor a wealthy benefactor. “They have a leadership function, not in a hierarchical sense...but as servants of the church...drawn mainly from the working class, with leaders emerging largely on the basis of their gifts and ability.” Obviously, the last word on this matter has not yet been heard.

verse 13 Mann points out a parallel between this verse and Mark 9:50. The latter has been interpreted as follows: “We have an exhortation to the disciples to hold fast to peace in themselves thereby securing peace among themselves.” The Greek word translated “most highly” is very similar to one meaning “most earnestly.” (Cousins) Boring states that since the word for “work” is in the singular, it refers to “one's life as a whole, and not individual deeds.”

verse 14 Some translate otakous as idlers, but it means “those who are disorderly” or “out of order.” It was apparently a military term and may be somewhat akin to a person who was AWOL. The translation “idler” may have been suggested by reference to II Thessalonians 3:11. (Smith)   On the other hand, Milligan explains that in later Greek it was applied to those with “idle and careless habits.” Sometimes we in the church tend to admonish the fainthearted and encourage the disorderly instead. The word translated as fainthearted literally means “small-souled” or “the little people.” (Elias)   The weak may be those weak in faith (as in Romans 14) or those who are morally weak.

Verse 16 The “rejoice” phrase is almost identical to that appearing in Philippians 4:4.

verse 17 As a good discussion question, ask how it is possible to pray without ceasing. Constant prayers also appear in 1:2.

verse 18 The pronoun “this” in the verse probably refers to prayer, rejoicing and thanksgiving, according to Cousins.

verse 19 There is some disagreement among scholars as to the meaning of this verse:

    “Quench” may refer to discouraging the exercise of spiritual gifts, but more likely means a warning against any immoral conduct which could hinder the work of the Spirit. (Cousins)

    Bruce considers v. 20 to explain v. 19, and thus to refer to the prophetic gifts.

    Harrison says that this verse refers back to the tongues of fire in Acts 2:3. Thus, no particular gift of the Spirit is in mind, but all of them.

verse 21 Barth and Blanke refer the reader to additional verses about discerning the will of God, such as Galatians 6:4; Romans 12:2; and Philippians 1:10. There is certainly a desperate need in today's church for more discernment among the members. Unfortunately, few are taught how to think for themselves and critically weigh opinions and information. We tend to just go with the crowd or some authority figure without questioning.

verse 22 Look at my post entitled “I Thessalonians 5:22: 'Abstain from every appearance of evil.'”

verse 23 “Sanctify you wholly” means “bring to completion the work of sanctification already begun” according to F.F. Bruce.

“'Spirit and soul and body' refer to three distinctive vantage points for viewing the human person, not three distinctive parts of the human person.” (A. Smith) These three terms represent “the different aspects of personhood he wished to emphasize.” (Constable) It is noteworthy that in II Corinthians 7:1 Paul mentions only body and spirit (also found in James 2:26). And in Hebrews 4:12, the author talks about the Word of God separating the soul from the spirit. In addition, “body and soul” is the pair found in Matthew 10:28. Thus, Bruce rightly states that this verse should not be “interpreted as a formal tripartite doctrine of human nature.” Finally, Chamblin says, “Far from dissecting the person, Paul expresses the hope that believers may, by God's sanctifying work, be saved from disintegration preserved as whole beings.”

Cousins feels that “peace in this verse is not the same as the peace of verse 13 but refers instead to prosperity and security.” I am not at all sure that I would agree with that assessment. For example, Ellingworth says that “peace” implies God's actions for the salvation of the whole person, and there is no reference to dissension within the community (which is yet another interpretation). A possible parallel is found in Hebrews 13:20.

verses 23,28 “Peace” and “grace” end the letter just as “grace and peace” (1:2b) opened it.

verse 24 “Calls” is in a verb form that suggests the call by God is on-going.

verse 25 Of the sixteen appearances of “brothers” in this letter, only here is it given the emphatic opening position in a sentence.

verse 26 A holy kiss (also in Romans 16:16) “symbolizes the congregation's distinctive love for the believers.” (A. Smith) All the other NT references to a kiss as a greeting within the congregation refer to the members so greeting one another. (Furnish) This is by no means a reference to an erotic kiss, but is probably the equivalent of saying “hug them for me” or “convey my best wishes to them.”

verse 27 Cousins: “It is difficult to explain the severity (unparalleled in the New Testament) of Paul's language without knowing more of the circumstances.” Similarly, Bruce says, “It is not clear why Paul so solemnly puts the recipients on oath to read the letter to every member of the community.” In any case, it is obvious that he felt that everyone should hear and carefully heed its message.