WHO WAS THE HIGH PRIEST WHEN DAVID ATE THE CONSECRATED BREAD?

The Old Testament narrative in question concerns the time that David and his men were fleeing from Saul's wrath and resorted to getting provisions from the priest of Nob. Saul subsequently murders the priest along with 85 other priests for helping him escape.

Emerson Green (“Counter Apologetics”) asks the above question in order to expose a contradiction within the Bible. Thus, Jesus says that Abiathar was high priest at the time (Mark 2:25-26) while the account in I Samuel 21-22 says that Ahimelech was the high priest.

Jenson, in discussing the whole concept of Jewish priesthood makes several points pertinent to this discussion: (1) “The biblical writings vary greatly in the detail with which they describe the Israelite priesthood.” (2) “The history of the high priesthood is especially obscure.” And that is especially true in the era before the return from Exile” and (3) “There is no fixed term for the high priest, who may be called the great priest (hakkohen haggadol), the head priest (kohen haro...), the anointed priest (hakkohen hammasiah) or simply the priest (Exod 31:10).”

In the OT passage of interest, Ahimelech is only called “the priest,” and there are numerous other priests at Nob with him. Thus, we cannot even state with certainty that he is “the high priest” at the time. And since we do not have a complete list of high priests at this early date, we have no additional sources to tell us who might have served in that function at the time.

As with most so-called contradictions within the Bible, there are a number of adequate options to chose from in resolving the issue, even if one can never be certain which is correct. In this case, some of the main possibilities are given below:

    1. Jesus made a factual error – For a Christian, this would be the option of last resort even though no doctrinal point hangs or falls on the exact identification of that particular priest during David's day.

    2. Mark, quoting from memory, made a factual error in relating the story – This is a slightly more acceptable option since it relieves Jesus from the charge of being mistaken in his facts.

Marcus appears to ascribe to this theory when he notes: “Some manuscripts of our passage, as well as the Matthean and Lukan parallels deal with the problem by simply omitting epi Abiathar archiereos.”

Metzger agrees with this assessment and points to other examples where Matthew and Luke apparently did the same thing; however in rebuttal, Hendricksen asks, “Are these Marcan phrases really so difficult that they were omitted by Matthew and Luke for this reason?”

    3. A scribal error in copying the earliest pertinent OT and/or NT manuscripts is responsible for the confusion. Keep in mind that most evangelical doctrinal statements state only that the Bible is accurate in the original manuscripts, of which unfortunately we have none.

    4. Mark was relying on “a midrashic [i.e. rabbinical] exposition of I Sam. 21:1-6.” (H. Anderson) The problem is that we have no information regarding such a midrash.

    5. Mark purposely chose to write “Ahimelech.”

Marcus says, “Whether or not Mark was aware of this technical error, the substitution for Ahimelech certainly suits his purposes in this passage.” He goes on to explain several ways in which this statement is true. But it is somewhat hard to believe that Mark would have purposely changed Jesus' words in order to make a subtle theological point.

    6. Mann, believing that Mark's Gospel was the latest of the Synoptics to be written, suggests that “Mark himself disregarded the absence of names [in the parallel accounts] and supplied one well known for his association with David.”

    7. And there is another possibility cited favorably by Mann, who says: “I am now indebted to Dr. Charles A. Kennedy for the suggestion that the name Abiathar, so far from being a mistake which Matthew and Luke corrected by omission, is the result of a scribal correction of what the scribe assumed to be a simple case of dittography [i.e. accidental copying of a word or phrase twice instead of once]. In other words, the original text of Mark would have been Ab(ba)-Abiathar (“the father of Abiathar”), in much the same way that in Arabic custom at the present time a father may be known by the name of a more famous son.”

    8. One option is suggested by a comment made by Metzger, who notes “Other witnesses [i.e. manuscripts], reluctant to go so far as to delete the phrase, inserted tou before archiereos...in order to permit the interpretation that the event happened in the time of (but not necessarily during the high-priesthood of) Abiathar (who was afterward) the high priest.” But perhaps these manuscripts have alternatively preserved Mark's original text instead.

    9. When properly understood, the text in Mark does does not really express the fact that Abiathar was the high priest at the time of this event. This general approach to a solution by retranslating the verse takes several different forms:

        a. “Wenham, for example.., noting the way in which epi + the genitive is used in 12:26, suggests that the meaning is 'in the section of scripture having to do with Abiathar.' As Lane points out, however, the phrase in question “is far away from 'have you not read,' Abiathar is not the central character in this portion of 1 Samuel, and rabbinic documents tend to designate a section by a term that occurs earlier rather than later in it (Abiathar does not appear until 1 Samuel 22).” (Marcus)

Grassmick subscribes to Wenham's understanding and adds, “Abiathar became high priest shortly after Ahimelech and proved more prominent than he, thus justifying the use of his name here.”

Short is also a supporter of Wenham's approach to translating Mark 2:26b. He says that 'in the passage about Abiathar the high priest' “seems preferable to the rendering in the text here [i.e. NIV], 'in the days of Abiathar the high priest' (feasible as that also is as a translation), in that it does not require that “Abiathar was high priest when the event occurred, which was, actually, during the high priesthood of Abiathar's father Ahimelech.”

        b. Marcus also states, “Similarly questionable is Derrett's suggestion that epi Abiathar archiereos means 'in the presence of Abiathar the high priest' and anticipates Abiathar's future office.”

    10. Finally, I would like to suggest another hypothetical solution which does not require stating that Mark, Jesus, the author of I Samuel, or any of the scribes copying the OT or NT documents made an error. And I believe that it is the one suggested by Hendricksen, although unfortunately he does not go on to explain himself further. He simply says that “Ahimelech functioned as a priest in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” Here is what he may be driving at, but if I am mistaken in trying to read his mind then I will take the blame myself for the following argument.

It is well known that a common OT practice was to name a child after his grandfather. In that manner, the whole patronymic line would alternate back and forth between two names until one of the men in the line happened to break the pattern. Thus, Millard notes that the name Ahimelech applies to two different priests in the OT: (1) “the father of Abiathar. The priest at Nob who gave David the shewbread and Goliath's sword, for which he was killed by Saul (1 Sa. xxi, xxii)” and (2) “Son of Abiathar, a priest under David, perhaps grandson of (1) (2 Sa. Viii.17).”

But what if this alternating pattern of names also applied earlier as well. We would then end up with the following genealogical series of priests (Roman numerals added to distinguishing them from one another):

        Abiathar I – this person, only mentioned by Jesus in Mark 2:25-26, would have been the actual high priest at the time of the incident of David and the shewbread (I Samuel 21).

        Ahimelich I – the priest of Nob who gave David the bread (I Samuel 21)

        Abiathar II – the priest who escaped the massacre (I Samuel 22)

        Ahimelech II – a later priest under David (II Samuel 8:17)

Thus, we are only left with the unanswerable question as to where Jesus got his information as to the first Abiathar in the series. But I am certainly not going to question the possibility of the One who stated “Before Abraham was, I am” having first-hand information of that fact.

    10. Lastly, if “the priest,” referring to Ahimelich I, is equivalent to calling him “high priest,” then what about Abiathar I, who Jesus names “high priest”? The answer may come from another NT passage: John 18:12-24. In that encounter of Jesus with the Jewish authorities, He is first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiphas, Caiphas being high priest that year (vv. 12-14). However, in vv. 19-23, it is Annas who is called high priest instead. How can there be two high priests at the same time? The answer given by almost all commentators is that Annas used to be the high priest before Caiphas took over; however Annas still had enough authority among the people that he continued to hold that honorary title. Thus, we have a clear precedent for considering that both Abiathar I and Ahimelich I were both allowed to be called the “high priest” at the same time.

Conclusion

After Bruce mentions some of the above options, he concludes: '”Whatever the case, Mark did not realize that there was a problem...While many ancient historians would not have been bothered by such an innocuous slip, it did seem to bother Matthew and Luke [assuming that they wrote after Mark did], so we cannot be sure that it would not have bothered Mark. Thus we can arbitrarily select one of the speculative solutions mentioned, perhaps choosing the one which pleases us the best, or we can say, 'We honestly don't know what the answer is to this problem, nor are we likely to ever know.' In that case, this verse makes plain that our knowledge is always partial so that our trust remains in God rather than in what we know.”

BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION: DOES GOD'S ANGER LAST FOREVER?

In his blog post, Emerson Green lists ten “incontrovertible contradictions” in the Bible. The one he chose above was a particularly poor example to prove the fallibility of the Bible. And that is true for several reasons. The two specific passages he chose to pit against one another were Micah 7:18 and Jeremiah 17:4. Let us start with the verse in Micah since there is little controversy about what it says.

Micah 7:18

“Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your possession? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in showing clemency.” This is actually a quotation of Exodus 34:6-7, also cited in Numbers 4:10; Psalm 103:7-14; and Jeremiah 32:18.

The historical context behind Micah's statement is described by Chisholm: “Judah's present was marred by their sinful obsession with idols (17:1-2). This idolatrous worship was designed to ensure the nation's prosperity, but the Lord would hand their wealth over to the invaders (vv. 3-4).”

Many other OT passages could be quoted which state the very same principle, and commentators are united in their interpretation. Below are just a few examples:

    “Yahweh's faithfulness sometimes is applied in two main ways within the context of Yahweh's punishment of the people. On the one hand, Yahweh's faithfulness provides the basis for his abundant mercy and his reluctance to mete out punishment (Joel 2:13; Mic 7:18); on the other hand, when Yahweh does pass judgment, it is out of his faithfulness and genuine love for his people...Thus, judgment against the people of Israel and Judah is viewed as the result of a loving God who cares enough to discipline his people.” (Cook)

    “This description of the complexity of God's character as both forgiving and judging is echoed elsewhere (e.g., Num 14:18; Ps 103:7-14; Jer 13:18...” (Sanderson)

    “The verb nasa often means 'to lift up, carry.' When used in relation to sin, it usually refers to bearing sin like a burden or bearing the consequences of sin...However, occasionally it refers to taking sin away in an act of forgiveness (Is 2:9; 33:24; Hos 1:6; 14:2; Mic 7:18).” (McKeown)

    McConville states that Micah 7:18-20 is “the theological high point in the book.” He compares it to Hosea 11:8-11. “This is a hope that can reckon with the reality of judgment, but believe, on the grounds of God's character and historic commitment to Israel, that judgment may not be the end.”

    “Ultimately, what overcomes divine wrath is divine compassion. Even though Yahweh was angry at Israel, his anger was replaced by a desire to comfort them instead (Is 12:1). Yahweh declares that his anger was temporary, but his love and compassion will be everlasting (Is 54:8). Because Yahweh's compassion grows warm and tender, he will no longer execute his fiery anger, nor come in wrath (Hos 11:8-9). Finally, God does not retain his anger forever because he delights in steadfast love and compassion (Mic 7:18-19).” (Lamb)

    “The recurrence of the language of Exodus 34:6-7 reinforces that while God's judgment is in force, it still remains an extension of the 'steadfast love of the LORD,' so that his mercy and compassion might be demonstrated...The destruction of the northern and southern kingdoms was justified because of sin, but God in his mercy will restore his people and land, even creation itself, because of his justice and righteousness (Mic 4:1-7).” (H.A. Thomas)

    “Having announced judgment because Israel has failed to reflect God's character (Mic 6:8), Micah in the last few verses of the book, returns to the question raised by Hosea's awful announcement of Yahweh's rejection of his people. Because of Yahweh's exodus self-revelations, judgment cannot be the last word. The God who delights in clemency will again show mercy, compassion and covenant faithfulness to His remnant people (Mic 7:18-20; cf. Ex 34:6-7).” (Watts)

Jeremiah 17:4

Next we turn to this apparent sole outlier that goes against all that is stated above when it declares: “You shall loosen your hand from your heritage which I gave to you and I will make you serve your enemies in a land which you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn for ever.”

Here is how several scholar weigh in on the meaning of this verse:

    L.C. Allen: “Jeremiah's premonitions crystallized into Nebuchadnezzar's devastating campaigns and deportations, as his prophesying turned inexorably into fulfillment. Such vehement warfare was a measure of divine anger, in a radical reprisal provoked by Judah's aberrations (Jer 4:5-8; 7:18-20; 21:3-7; 32:28-30,37; 52:3).”

    Marlow talks of “the concept of the land as the Lord's most beautiful inheritance or heritage (nahala) (Jer 3:18-19), which the children of Israel have defiled (Jer 2:7; 16:18), and which they will forfeit on account of their actions (Jer 17:4).”

    Gane says that “expiation was impossible, and they would suffer the divine judgment of exile (Jer 17:3-4).”

Contradiction?

So much is not in doubt, but does Jeremiah 17:4 really contradict the combined witness of Micah 7:18 and related verses? There are two ways to approach this conundrum.

Translation Issues

“On the whole, every translation of 17:2-3 remains uncertain.” And that uncertainty carries over to v. 4 as well. (Hulst)

The first and perhaps the easiest to comprehend is to consider what Jeremiah is really stating here. A simple look at the grammar of Jeremiah 17:4 reveals that it is not God's anger (better translated as “wrath”) which burns for ever, but the consequences of that anger. And those are the natural consequences of the people's idolatrous actions. A somewhat related idea is expressed in Hosea 8:7 when the prophet talks about Israel's worship of idols: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” The metaphor involves wind in place of fire, but the concept is the same.

When I was a chemist back in New York State, we had a small Bible study which met at lunchtime. One of the participants was a young technician who had led a wild life before he met the Lord. He had to admit to us that he was having a very difficult time comprehending even the simplest concepts that we were discussing since, in his words, “My brain is fried from taking too many drugs.” There is no doubt in my mind that God had long ago forgiven him and no longer visited His wrath on this young man. But there is also no doubt that the consequences of his earlier acts would be with him as long as he lived.

Applying that concept to the historical context of Jeremiah 17:4, we know that due to Israel's grievous sins God removed the blessing of the land from them. Of course, a remnant of the people subsequently returned to a portion of that land, only to be subsequently subjugated by several foreign powers over the centuries as well as being sent into exile again under Roman occupation. And an even smaller remnant of Jews occupies an even smaller part of the Holy Land today. Though God has repeatedly shown mercy to His historic people over the years, the Jews are still living out the consequences of that initial act of disobedience. They sowed the wind and are still reaping the whirlwind however God may view their current spiritual status.

Confirming the above view that this verse in no way says that God's anger lasts forever is what Jeremiah himself says elsewhere in his long book. Allen states, “Jeremiah stands in the tradition of Hosea that embraced post-judgment hope, and so the merited 'forever' of Jeremiah 17:4 is transcended. 'Everlasting love' (Jer 31:3) will trump the divine hatred in Jeremiah 12:8 (cf. Hos 9:15; 11:8-9).”

And Thompson says, “The picture is consistent with much of Jeremiah's preaching. Judah's rebellion was deep-rooted and ineradicable unless a deep change such as described later in the book (31:31-34) took place. Only when God wrote his law on his people's heart could obedience replace rebellion.”

Textual Issues

The following discussion may be a little complicated and confusing; I know it was for me. It involves the concept of textual criticism. Many conservative denominational doctrinal statements express their attitude toward the Bible by saying something like: “The original manuscripts of the Bible are free from any doctrinal and factual error.” The problem comes in with the inescapable fact that in no case do we possess the original manuscript. We may have very ancient copies of copies of copies of the original manuscripts, but in no case has anyone ever found even a scrap of papyrus in Moses' or Paul's handwriting. However, we do have numerous early copies that can be compared to one another as well as early translations in other languages. From those, scholars attempt to reach a consensus as to what the original must have looked like. And they are generally able to do so except in difficult cases, one of which happens to be Jeremiah 17:1-4. Here is a brief summary of the problems we face with this text:
“The text [of verses 3-4] is obscure; RSV translates with help from the similar passage 15:13,14.” (Cawly and Millard)

“Hebrew here has, 'You (plural) have kindled a fire,' which would fit save that the person of address is singular elsewhere in vss. 3-4.” (Bright) He calls the oracle of verses 1-4 “textually much damaged.”

In comparing the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 17:1-4 with the corresponding Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Thompson says, “The whole of vv. 1-4 is lacking in LXX for a reason that is not now clear...it seems likely that these verses were lacking in the Qumran text also.”

Bullock lists six longer passages of Jeremiah which are missing in LXX, including 17:1-5a. He states, “These omissions may be due to scribal errors...Yet some may indicate that the translator was working with a different [and perhaps earlier] version of the Hebrew text than has come to us...”

Jeremiah 17:1-4 and 15:13-14

As if this were not enough problems to deal with, there is also the almost identical wording in these two passages mentioned above by Cawly and Millard. One can view that relationship in various ways:

    A. Both are original to the manuscript.

    B. Jeremiah 17 is a misplaced copy of Jeremiah 15. If so, it would explain why LXX omits it altogether, as does John Bright, who calls the verses a damaged variant of 17:1-4 in his Anchor Bible translation. However, Thompson defends the current placement of 15:13-14: “Although these verses are a partial duplicate of 17:3-4, they are hardly to be regarded as simply an intrusion into the text but may be seen as a significant part of the total picture.” In a similar manner, Wiseman says, “These two verses are no insertion but essential here to show that the continued stubbornness of the people will be no match for the Babylonians...”

    C. Jeremiah 15 is a misplaced copy of Jeremiah 17. This would explain why RSV uses ch. 17 to help translate ch. 15 and why NEB omits 15:13-14 in its translation. But if this is true, it raises another possibility since the vast majority of Hebrew manuscripts of 15:14 actually say nothing at all about the duration of the consequences but end with “upon you” not “forever.” Thus, we have the following accurate translations of the end of 15:14, all in basic agreement with the King James Version:

    “My anger burns like fire, and it will consume you.” (Living “Bible)

    “My anger is blazing and fierce burning in hot judgment against you.” (The Message)

    “My anger will kindle a fire that will burn against you.” (NIV)

    “My anger will kindle a fire which shall burn you up.” (JB)

So if Jeremiah 17:1-4 originated with 15:13-14, it is clear that there should is no mention in the latter passage of an “everlasting” punishment at all.

WAS JAIRUS' DAUGHTER DEAD OR DYING? (MATTHEW 9:18 vs MARK 5:22-23)

I came across a blog site called "Counter Apologetics" by Emerson Green the other day. He has come up with what he feels are the ten most unanswerable contradictions found in the Bible. Most of them have already been dealt with rather easily in my earlier posts. However, I will now try to counter his counter-apologetics on three new ones he brings up. Today I would like to briefly examine the question as to whether Jairus' daughter was already dead when Jairus first approached Jesus for help.

There are three parallel accounts of this miracle of resurrection, cf. Matthew 9, Mark 5, and Luke 8. The apparent problem comes in when we look at Matthew's narrative in comparison with the other two. As Jairus first approaches Jesus, he says that his daughter “is even now dead” (Matthew 9:18), “is at the point of death” (Mark 5:23), or “is dying” (Luke 8:41). Note how Matthew appears to contradict the other two versions which actually only have a messenger come to Jairus with the news of his daughter's actual death slightly later as Jesus is going to her.

It turns out that rather than being an unanswerable, black-and-white contradiction, there are in fact several ways to resolve this issue adequately.

1. In all three accounts, there is actually another miracle sandwiched in between the start and end of the resurrection. And if you compare the lengths of each version with one another, it turns out that Matthew covers the miracles in only nine verses compared to seventeen in Luke and twenty-three in Mark. Thus, several commentators note that Matthew's appears to be a greatly condensed version of the whole story. As Hill says, “According to Mark, the girl was 'at the point of death', and a message came later that she had died. Matthew abbreviates the narrative.” And Blomberg states, “Matthew abbreviates Mark, this time to such an extent that he seems to contradict the parallel accounts.”

Thus, as Barbieri says, “This apparent discrepancy is explained by the fact that while Jesus was speaking to Jairus, someone came from his house to tell him the girl had died. Matthew did not mention that detail, and therefore included the report of the girl's death in Jairus' request.”

2. “If Matthew and Luke represent severely condensed versions, carefully honed to essentials over the years, Mark must evidently have found – in his own sources – that he could add life and detail and so fleshed out what he found.” (Mann)

Note that Approach #1 assumes that Mark's was the earliest account while #2 assumes that it was composed later than Matthew's and Luke's Gospels.

3. The next possibility lies in the different wording in the three accounts in relation to the girl's death. Nixon says, “It would appear that Jairus meant [in Matthew's version] that his daughter was already good as dead, and that actual occurrence of death was shortly confirmed.”

And Blomberg goes into a little more detail regarding the Greek wording, explaining that “there is not nearly so much difference between Matthew's arti eteleutesen in v. 18 (which could fairly be translated 'just came to the point of death'[; cf. Heb 11:22) and eschatos echei in Mark 5:2-3 (which could be rendered 'is dying').

4. Finally, there are two more aspects to take into account, both described by Blomberg, who first states that “to call this a contradiction is anachronistically to impose on an ancient text modern standards of precision in story telling.” This is a common ploy used by Bible critics, who tend to require the early narrators to have a thorough grasp of modern notions and terminology for all natural phenomena.

5. Blomberg goes on to say, “What is more, in a world without modern medical monitors to establish the precise moment of expiry...what is important is not the precise moment of death but Jairus's astonishing faith.” I know that either my wife and I or a nurse were constantly at my aunt's bedside as she lay dying. For hour after hour she showed absolutely no sign of life except the slight amount of brain activity indicated by her monitors. Her breathing was too shallow to detect and her pulse was so weak, it was barely detectable. Without a precise brain-activity monitor, we would have had no idea when over a several-hour period was her exact time of death.

LUKE 7:11-17

 

 

                             Raised in Nain (collage, 2009)

Luke 7:11

“Soon afterward, he went to a city called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him.”

Riesner and others believe that “the present-day Arabic village Nein, eight kilometers southeast of Nazareth” is the location of this site.

Luke 7:12

He draws near the gate of the city and meets a large funeral procession coming out. They are carrying a bier with the body of a young man on it, the only son of a widow.

Geldenhuys reports, “Tombs in the rock have been found before the eastern gate of the village along the road leading to Capernaum.” But actually, no remains of gates have yet been found, causing Riesner to state: “Nain was hardly a city (polis); the city gate mentioned in Luke 7:11-12 could have been no more than the outlet of a street.” But he admits, “Excavations have not yet been possible.”

As Marshall explains, “The only difficulty about the identification [i.e. of Nein as Nain] is the lack of a gate to the town, but the fact that none has so far been discovered may be due simply to the inadequate archaeological investigation of the site.”

“Luke draws particular interest in those whom Jesus heals as people. He eschews labeling people in terms of their disease, avoiding the one-word descriptors so prevalent in the other Synoptics (see Lk 5:18,24; 7:12; 18:5). He includes details for understanding the impact of the malady not only on the sufferers but also on the larger family structure: the dead boy from Nain is a widow's only son (Lk 7:12), and the demon-possessed boy is his father's only child...” (Wahlen)

Luke 7:13

At this point in the narrative, the Lord sees the widow and has compassion on her.

“Regarding the absolute use of the noun kyrios, Matthew and Mark do not use the term in a transcendent sense within their narrative frameworks of the saying of Jesus...Luke, on the other hand does employ such usage. For instance, in Luke 7:13 we read 'And the Lord [ho kyrios] had compassion on her...Luke, as a Gentile writing exclusively to a Gentile audience, shows no reticence in using ho kyrios of Jesus, thereby implying the transcendent religious sense of the term.” (Witherington and Yamazaki-Ransom).

Nicholson says regarding this verse, “No one has asked Jesus for mercy or demonstrated great faith; rather he approaches the woman's son of his own accord and raises the son from the dead. This demonstrates that it is Jesus' nature to have mercy; he does not wait for a request before he feels compelled to respond to a need.”

Luke 7:14-15

Jesus touches the bier, stopping the procession. He then simply says, “Young man, I say to you, arise.”

“Jesus is not reluctant to touch a corpse, and his touch restores life (Mt 9:23-26; Lk 7:11-17)...The Gospels thus present Jesus encountering a stream of ritually impure and potentially polluting people, but in the encounter their contagion does not defile Jesus; rather, his holiness purges their pollution, renders them clean, and integrates them again into the mainstream of Jewish society...” (deSilva)

“Jesus acts without drama, ritual, or even prayer. The same word of Jesus that from a distance healed a centurion's slave (v. 7) here has the power to raise the dead.” (Craddock)

Luke 7:16-17

“Luke says, the people 'feared,' 'glorified God,' and said that 'God has visited his people' (Lk 7:16). This terminology suggests theophany ('fear' [Lk 1:12; 5:26]; 'visited' [Lk 1:68,19:44; cf. Ex 4:31]); that is, God has appeared in Jesus' mighty act.” (Dennis)

Craddock suggests, “The phrase 'has arisen among us' may possibly be a faint allusion to Jesus' resurrection, but more likely it is drawn from Deut. 18:18; 'I will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren.' The second expression, 'God has visited his people,' is also a favorite of Luke (1:68; 19:44; Acts 15:14). God's visitation may be in wrath (Ex. 20:5) or in mercy (Ps. 106:4), but for Luke it is always an act of grace.”

Geldenhuys concludes from these verses: “What He did here for the widowed mother and son He will one day do for all the faithful in a perfect and final form. He will bring full comfort, He will raise all His people in incorruptibility, and will reunite us, in the heavenly realm, with our loved ones who have died in Him.”

Context within Luke's Gospel

“Luke's narrative of Jesus' ministry begins with various hints at an enthusiastic response of the people to Jesus' preaching (Lk 4:36-37; 5:26; 6:17-18; 7:11) and ends with an account of their collaboration with the religious leaders in the plot against Jesus (Lk 23:13:23).” (Novakovic)

“Apart from its own witness to the nature of Messiah's mission, it is the prologue necessary for understanding the following episode...In the context of the popular misunderstanding of Jesus' mission the rising doubts of John the Baptist (7:18-36) can be better appreciated.” (Ellis)

Or as Marshall puts it, “This narrative, like the previous one, provides the 'text' on which the 'commentary' regarding the person and work of Jesus in 7:18-35 is based.”

Old Testament Context

Litwak discusses passages in Luke's Gospel in which Jesus is compared to Elijah or Elisha. These include Luke 1:16-17,76; 4:27; 7:1-10,27; 9:7-8,19-20.

More specifically, many scholars comment on the relationship between this passage and the raising from the dead accomplished through Elijah in I Kings 17. K.L. Anderson gives one of the fullest expositions of the parallels between these two miraculous narratives, and so I will quote his words in some length:

“The account was composed with clear echoes of Elijah's raising up the son of the widow of Zarephath. Jesus came to town and met the widow at the gate (Lk 7:12; cf. 1 Kings 17:10) and raised the dead son to life (Lk 7:14-15; cf. 1 Kings 17:22). Precisely the same words from [the Greek version of] 1 Kings 17:23 appear in Luke 7:15: 'and he gave him to his mother.' The crowd's twofold interpretation of the miracle fits Luke's christological portrait of Jesus: 'A great prophet has risen among us' and 'God has visited his people' (Lk 7:16).

With regard to the first interpretation, in his inaugural appearance at Nazareth Jesus invoked the prophetic ministries of Elijah and Elisha as a pattern (Lk 4:14-30), and specifically referenced Elijah's dealings with the Zarephath widow (Lk 4:26). Preceding Jesus' resurrection miracle in Luke 7:11-17 is an incident that also resembles the ministry of the two OT prophets. Jesus reached beyond Israel by healing the slave of a Gentile (Lk 7:1-10)...”

From Anderson's words above, one might get the mistaken idea that Luke created this story from scratch in order to provide a clearer parallel between Jesus and Elijah. But as Craddock says, “Luke does not bring I Kings 17 to the reader's attention; it remains beneath the surface, and if the reader does not know the Old Testament, the Elijah story will not come to mind at all...But if Luke's readers did know the Greek Old Testament, passages such as 7:11-17 could give a sense of continuity, of being at home, and knowing a truth at a powerful level of recognition.”

FLATLAND BY EDWIN A. ABBOTT (THE NATURE OF THE TRINITY)

This slender volume (less than 100 pages), published in 1884, was written by an English clergyman who had a fascination for mathematics. The subtitle of the book is “A Romance of Many Dimensions,” in which the word “Dimensions” has several meanings, the most literal of which is a study of the geometrical possibilities of one-, two-, and greater-dimensional realities.

The most interest in this book over the years has come from science-fiction and mathematically minded fans. The introduction to the Dover reprint by Banesh Hoffman, for example, calls it “a stirring adventure in pure mathematics...This is no trifling tale of science fiction. Its aim is to instruct, and it is written with subtle artistry.” And the publisher's note on the back of the front piece calls it “an unequaled presentation of geometrical concepts and...a barbed satire of the hierarchical world of the Victorians.”

It may well be all of those things stated above, but my personal opinion, and that of others, is that Abbott's artistry is actually much more subtle than the above quotes would indicate since it includes, and no doubt intended to include, a hefty dose of theology which has gone over the heads of many who comment on it. What this obscure clergyman has accomplished in his book is to give us one of the most powerful analogies for beginning to understand the mystery of the Trinity.

Paul Copan, in Dictionary of Christianity and Science, provides a very short history of attempts to comprehend the Trinity through the use of earthly analogies. Some cited in the past have been (a) the three states of water (unfortunately leading to the heresy called modalism) or (b) the three parts of an egg (another heresy called partialism).

One possible way to getting around modalism for the water analogy is to note that under certain conditions of temperature and pressure called the triple-point, water exists in all three states simultaneously. And I have sometimes tried to explain the belief in Jesus being both human and divine by invoking the example of light waves, which physicists say have the simultaneous properties of both matter and energy.

Copan additionally describes Begbie's analogy of God as a chord of music composed of three separate tones combined in “an integrated sound within the same space with distinctive, mutually enhancing notes.” Or we could consider Moreland and Craig's image of the mythological three-headed dog Cerberus in which there are “three distinct centers of awareness, each with the same canine nature.” As Copan concludes: "Whichever type of analogy is used , we have threeness and oneness without contradiction and with plausibility...There is both union as well as distinction within God. So it can be said that God is both community and unity, distinction though not separation."

Any of those images may be helpful to you in understanding the Trinity, but to me, the Flatland analogy comes perhaps the closest to explaining, at least in a dim way, the possibility of God as three-in-one. To do that explaining I will have to unfortunately jettison almost completely the ingenious plot of Abbott's book and stick only to a geometrical rendering.

Imagine a flat sheet of paper inhabited by two-dimensional beings such as triangles, squares, and a host of polygons. They can sense and interact with one another by bumping into them and moving along their respective sides to see how many angles they have. And in this imaginary world, the more sides one has, the higher in the social order one is. Another way of putting it is that the closer one approaches a circle, the more perfect one becomes.

Suddenly, into this well-ordered world comes a brand-new type of being. He has no angles at all and thus is a perfect circle. Reactions to this circle vary considerable, but at one point there is a concerted effort to get rid of him since he upsets the existing establishment. But that attempt fails when the circle suddenly shrinks smaller and smaller until it is just a dot, and then disappears entirely. There is much more to the plot than this brief outline, but it is all that is need for my immediate purposes.

To explain this phenomenon, we must put ourselves in the place of the Flatland creatures for a moment. They exist only in two dimensions and can only “see” in one dimension, length. However, by changing their perspective through moving around they are able to discern the two-dimensional nature of others around them. Analogously, we are three-dimensional creatures who can view in three dimensions only by moving around and/or taking advantage of our two eyes, which give us two slightly different views from the same location.

In Flatland, the key to the sudden appearance and disappearance of the circle into their narrow world is the fact that in three-dimensional reality the circle is in fact a sphere which can intersect the plane of Flatland at will, being first sensed as a mere point, then a circle which can grow at will in circumference or shrink back to a point and disappear altogether simply by moving up and down, but it is still a sphere the whole time. The only thing that changes is how much of the sphere is revealed to the Flatland creatures at any given time.

From this geometrical picture, we can now see that the whole story of Flatland is really that of God as a many-dimensional being coming to earth as a three-dimensional one, Jesus, and then ultimately ascending outside of our limited three-dimensional perception. And one can extend the analogy even further by noting that Jesus told his disciples that he needed to depart in order that the Spirit might come. That event could well be described as similar to when the sphere chooses to descend to Flatland and reside inside any of the polygons who live there. God in that way lives within a believer.

Note that in none of these various different permutations of the sphere does the sphere change its reality in the least; it remains a single sphere. The only variation is in how the Flatlanders are able to experience it.

And as a thought exercise to leave you with, consider that the fourth dimension (in which God exists) is time. With that in mind, such matters as God's omnipresence in space and time, His omniscience in being able to see future events, the difference between precognition and predestination, etc. all come into clearer perspective.

THE BOY WITH THE FISH AND BREAD (JOHN 6:8-9)

 

                                             “Every Little Bit Helps” (collage, 2009)

The importance of the miracle of the feeding of the multitudes is seen in the fact that it appears in all four gospels (Matthew 14; Mark 6:38; Luke 9; John 6). But only John's account mentions where the original fish and bread came from. In John 6:8-9, we are told that Jesus charges Philip with finding food for all the people. Philip expresses the impossibility of purchasing that much food, but his brother Andrew goes through the crowd and comes back with a boy who had brought his meager lunch with him. With this small resource, Jesus multiplies it until it suffices for everyone, with some food left over.

Before proceeding further, it is best to dismiss the well-meaning but unlikely explanation given by some skeptical commentators, namely, that all the people in the crowd hid their own food supplies when Andrew canvassed them. It took the generous impulse of the one boy to shame the others into revealing and sharing their resources with others. I am afraid that particular explanation appears to me even more unlikely than the possibility that Jesus was actually capable of carrying out such a miracle.

And in a way, the multiplication of the loaves and fish fits into the same pattern as Jesus' first recorded miracle, turning water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana. In both cases, Jesus performed the same sort of miracle that God built into nature in order that we might have food and drink, the only difference being in the time scale involved. This is not a new suggestion as Colin Brown explains: “Augustine also considers the suggestion, favored by more recent writers [C.S. Lewis among them], that miracles might be instances of the accelerated processes in nature...the feeding of the five thousand (Matt. 14:17,20) is no more of a miracle than what God does daily, when out of a few seeds he raises up immense harvests.”

Andrew

But since Jesus generally works with physical resources already at hand instead of creating something out of nothing, He still needs some appropriate raw material, and this is where Andrew comes in. Instead of throwing up his hands in despair as Philip did, Andrew comes back with what little he could find. Borchert stresses Andrew's similar feeling of failure and hopelessness, but I feel he overdoes this aspect of Andrew's character since he at least takes the initiative that Philip refused to do and he also has enough hope in Jesus' ability to mention what he did find among the crowd.

We are not told a lot about Andrew in the NT, but what little we do know certainly causes us to look upon him in a favorable light. “Andrew responds to each situation by introducing others to Jesus: his brother (1:4), the boy (6:8), and the Greeks (12:22). Like his more famous brother, though in a different way he too is an appropriate model of the disciple that bears much fruit (15:8).” (Culpepper)

The Bread and Fish

Morris explains: “Barley bread was bread of a cheap kind, so that the boy was probably poor. The two fishes were something of a tidbit which would make the coarse barley bread more palatable.” At this point, I am reminded of the tiny offering the widow put in the temple collection which Jesus valued far above the lavish offerings given by the more wealthy. It is not the monetary amount that counts but the attitude with which it is given and importance the offering has to the giver in relation to their total resources.

You may note that there is a seeming emphasis on numbers in the story of the feeding. One obvious reason is to demonstrate quantitatively the enormous amount of multiplication that had taken place. But we can't ignore the possible symbolic meaning behind the various numbers mentioned either. Thus, Borchert discusses the probable significance of “seven” (five loaves plus two fish) standing for completeness or perfection and “twelve” (baskets gathered afterward), symbolic of the chosen people of God in both the OT (the tribes) and the NT (the apostles).

The Boy

This anonymous personage is designated as a paidarion. Braumann notes that this word in Classical Greek “generally means, like paidion, a little child (cf. Plato, Symp. 207d). But it can mean young man (cf. Tob. 6:2f), a young servant or slave.” Actually, as Raymond Brown and others point out, it “is a double diminutive of pais of which paidion is the normal diminutive (iv 49). In [the Greek translation of] I Kings paidarion is used to designate Gehazi the servant of Elisha (iv 12,14,25,v 20).”

And Morris says, “The strict meaning cannot be insisted upon, for the word is used in LXX [the Septuagint] at Gen. 37:30 to describe Joseph at the age of seventeen, and several times in Tobit 6 of a young man of marriageable age...and Moffatt translates in this passage [i.e. John 6], 'servant.'”

Old Testament Parallels

Some scholars have drawn an unlikely parallel to the episode in Ruth where she is given a large amount of grain by Boaz. However, much more likely is the suggestion of Raymond Brown who notes “the 'lad' and the 'barley loaves' recall the Elisha story in II Kings iv 42. We remember that the NT establishes a parallelism between Jesus and the closely connected figures of Elijah and Elisha...A man comes to Elisha with twenty barley loaves (one of the four uses of 'barley as an adjective in LXX. Elisha says, 'Give to the men that they may eat.” There is a servant present (designated as leitourgos here, but as paidarion five verses before, and the latter is his normal designation). The servant asks, 'How am I to set this before a hundred men' – a question similar to vs. 9 in John. Elisha repeats the order to give the food to the men and they eat and have some left.”

TECHNOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN FAITH

Much, perhaps too much, debate in the past centered on the uneasy relationship between science and faith. But today I am seeing more attention paid to the effect new technologies have had on Christian doctrine and practice. For example, due to a “happy accident” recently I came across two articles I had clipped out of back-to-back issues of CT magazine. And I realized that there was a definite pattern uniting the two essays. One was by Daniel G. Hummel titled “When Concordances Broke Context” and the other was “Truth, Love & Social Media” by John Koessler. The first of these articles dealt with the impact of new technology on Christian doctrine while the second explained the dangers to our Christian life and witness posed by another technology.

Marshall McLuhan is best known for his statement “The Medium is the Message.” We tend to think of modern forms of media when we hear this statement, but it also applies to even simple tools including Bible concordances and chain references such as found in the margins of some Bibles. Hummel discusses the history behind such innovations and how their popularity in the 18^th and 19^th century began to shape Christian doctrinal views, especially in America through the publication of The Scofield Reference Bible when coupled with the Bible Reading Method in vogue at the time.

Without going through all the details, Hummel demonstrates how the unique (and some would say borderline heretical) doctrinal ideas of John Darby became disseminated far beyond the confines of his small Exclusive Brethren denomination until they became for a long while the predominant way of thinking in conservative Christian churches in America. And it is still quite popular today in a large number of independent conservative congregations.

There were several glaring problems with Darby's method of Bible reading which were only multiplied when new “technologies” such as exhaustive concordances became readily available for the average reader to utilize. The “literal” method he propounded consisted in following key words throughout the Old and New Testament while assuming, quite erroneously, that the words meant basically the same in all of them, whatever their immediate context happened to be as well as probably referring to the same or similar idea or event. But in addition, Darby insisted on “rightly dividing” certain verses not only in regard to the appropriate dispensation to which they referred (thus, Dispensationalism became the general term by which his theological system become known) but also as to whether there was an “earthly” or “heavenly” meaning to the verse.

To say that such a “scientific” methodology would lead to a strictly literal understanding of the biblical text is far more than a mere exaggeration. But because the method could be quite easily practiced by anyone who had access to a concordance or chain-reference Bible, it caught on like wildfire with the American public who now felt that they could arrive at the truth of Scripture just as easily as trained Bible scholars. It certainly appealed to our native feelings of equality and democracy.

“That way of thinking about the Bible – as a hyperlinked text” might seem appealing, but “What insights that journey would produce...would be entirely dependent on the path one chose to take...it should be less compelling to Christians committed to the unity and coherence of Scripture.” (Hummel)

Now none of the above is to demean the value of an exhaustive concordance for personal Bible study. But it must be coupled with a healthy amount of skepticism regarding how far one can go with it as one's only tool and without adequate training in all that goes into truly informed exegesis of a passage of Scripture.

As Hummel points out, the result of such group or individual Bible studies “could be shaped by the biblical context and narrative, but it was just as often conditioned by readers' personal circumstances and their particular cultural assumptions.” That fact has probably always been true, but the difference came in when one was told, as I have heard from the pulpit, that such a method of Bible study was the “perfect” one.

Moving on to the more modern technologies associated with the rise of social media at the present time, Koessler warns us of the various ways this phenomenon can adversely affect out interactions with fellow believers and our Christian witness to others.

He first points to the similarity between posting something on-line and Paul's practice of writing long letters to various congregations throughout the Roman world. But on the other hand, there are definite differences in the two practices.

In the first place, Paul had visited, and even founded, most of these fledgling groups of believers and knew many of them quite well. By contrast, it is now possible to interact with people around the world with whom one has never personally seen and never will meet. That factor of anonymity alone makes it much more tempting for us to lash out on-line at those with whom we disagree, sometimes in quite unchristian ways. And even if that doesn't happen, it is without a doubt harder to discuss in a reasonable manner a controversial item without doing it face-to-face or having first established a personal relationship with others. Here are some random quotes from Koessler's article:

“Many of our online debates are foolish and stupid. There aim is not to persuade or facilitate understanding so much as to provoke.” It is easy to do so in the comfort of our own house and not having to look at any possible distress we might be causing to the other party.

“When we are hospitable in conversation, even on-line, we take responsibility for the safety and well-being of the welcomed guest.” We would certainly do so if that person was a guest in our house.

“Paul indicates we need to watch our tone. Certainly, there is a place for passion and even anger. But the way we speak the truth is important...2 Timothy 2:24.” And unfortunately, tone is sometimes hard to gauge in a conversation without having recourse to a person's body language to supplement their actual words.

There is a final difference between the situation of the church in Paul's time and in our own time. Then, there was really nowhere for a Christian to go to in town if he or she had a major disagreement with others in the congregation. Thus, it was a necessity to work out differences in understanding within the church body. Today, if one has even a minor point of disagreement with a fellow church member, all he has to do is go a few miles down the street to find another congregation with which to worship.

We had such a person in our own church a few years ago who left in a huff when the church leadership did something he didn't personally agree with, even though we tried to reason with him. We found out this was the third or fourth congregation in town he had left in the last several years.

Such a phenomenon is multiplied with the advent of the Internet. Whether one is worshiping remotely via YouTube or engaging in an on-line debate, it now only takes the flick of a wrist to change churches or block someone. It is in this manner that we can easily confine ourselves to our comfortable information silos and never be challenged by those who have differing opinions. And similarly, it is in that same manner that we will cease to grow spiritually.

I CORINTHIANS 15:35-58 -- THE RESURRECTION

In this epistle, Paul deals with a number of specific questions with which the church there was wrestling. Padilla explains, “The Corinthians had developed problematic thinking about this gospel, which they had previously received as a word of salvation. In chapters 1-4, Paul corrected their view of the crucifixion of Jesus. And in chapter 15, he corrected their view of his resurrection. First, some were making the claim that resurrection was not possible (15:12-19). Paul contradicted this claim by reminding them that Christ himself had been raised from the dead! This was what the Scripture had promised and what the apostles (Paul included) and many others had witnessed.”

Thus, the first 34 verses of the chapter deal with the reality of the resurrection. But there was a second, related issue to deal with – the exact nature of a believer's resurrected body. It is this issue which forms the background for the second half of I Corinthians 15. We might have expected Paul to have based this discussion on the nature of Jesus' resurrected body, but there is perhaps a good reason why he didn't. It is the same reason why it is naïve to think that we can simply model our earthly life on Jesus' earthly life and constantly ask ourselves, “What would Jesus do?” We can't, and shouldn't ask that question since we do not have the same divine nature He did even while on earth. Without His divine power and omniscience, we are bound to fail in our attempt to copy Jesus. However, the above is certainly not to deny that there is a sort of identification between the believer and Jesus.

“A leading motif [in the Epistles] is the linking of the believer' experience with Christ's resurrection, which is viewed as the model and source of the believer's future resurrection from the dead...In a sense baptism becomes the prime epistolary image for the believer's link with Christ, with imagery of dying with Christ and rising with him linked with the physical act of baptism.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

I can sympathize with Paul at this point since this whole theological subject is somewhat of a mystery to all of us believers. That no doubt includes Paul himself even if he was granted unique access to certain wonders in heaven. In attempting to explain the nature of the resurrected body, Paul falls back on a series of comparisons with earthly phenomena to which his audience can relate.

“Paul is in no mood for foolish questions, yet...he turns them to the world in which they live, to things that they can see and understand.” (Marsh)

I Corinthians 15:35-38 – First he compares the resurrected body to the growth of a seed into a plant.

“To help the Corinthians overcome their unbelief, Paul gave them an analogy: When seed goes into the ground, it looks like one thing. Then, after going through putrefaction, it comes out looking different. It is a different body. In a similar way, Paul said, the human body goes through corruption and putrefaction but then – by the power of God – is raised in a new material, glorious body of a nature we do not understand.” (Padilla)

That concept should be even easier for us to understand today since we know that the DNA of the seed carries through to that of the plant. We thus see both a continuity and a differentiation between our old existence and our resurrected one. The Christian view of the afterlife is totally different from teachings in Eastern religions where after death a person is either melded together with all others into a mega-soul or is reborn as an entirely different earthly creation with nothing at all in common with its previous existence.

As Marsh says, “while in appearance different, it is in essence the same, for wheat yields wheat – to each kind of seed he gives its own body – suggesting continuity of essential character or identity.”

Regarding the phrase “God gives” in v. 38, Hillyer says, “The new life is not automatic but dependent upon the predetermined will and the creative act of God.”

I Corinthians 15:39 – This is followed by a look at the animal kingdom with its myriad of different living creatures.

Fee points out in respect to the four kinds of animal life mentioned in this verse: “These are the four specifically mentioned, in reverse order, as being created on the fifth and sixth days of creation.” This practice of quoting earlier passages in reverse order is actually quite common throughout the biblical writings.

I Corinthians 15:40-41 – Next comes a consideration of the skies where he differentiates between the heavenly bodies and earthly ones.

Lowery points to “Dan 12:3 where resurrected saints were compared to stars; also Matt. 13:43.”

There is a sort of symmetry to verses 39-41 as can be seen in Figure I, adapted from Gordon Fee's analysis:

                                             Figure 1: Structure of I Corinthians 15:39-41

    A. Not all earthly bodies are the same (39a)

            B. People have one kind (39b)

                Animals another (39c)

                Birds another (39d)

                Fish another (39e)

                        C. There are heavenly bodies (40a)

                                D. There are earthly bodies (40b)

                        C'. Heavenly bodies have one kind of glory (40c)

                                D'. Earthly bodies have another kind of glory (40d)

            B'. The sun has one kind of glory (41a)

                 The moon has another kind of glory (41b)

                 The stars have another kind of glory (41c)

    A'. Not all stars are the same (41d)

Paul's argument so far might be summarized as Marsh puts it: “If therefore in the present universe these personal characteristics are evident within the various categories of creation, God is well able at Christ's coming to invest each individual believer with a new resurrection body which will be in perfect harmony with his own essential being.”

And Fee adds that “the long debate over whether the stress lies on continuity or discontinuity is a bit misguided. Paul's concern obviously lies with both.”

I Corinthians 15:42-44 – In these verses Paul revisits the seed analogy.

“Paul...summarizes this discussion with two adjectives which are difficult to translate concisely and have often been misunderstood (v. 42). The contrast is not between physical/material and disembodied/ immaterial, but between different bodies, the present one psychikon, i.e. animated by soul, the future one pneumatikon, i.e. animated by spirit.” (P.S. Johnston)

“In 15:44a Paul introduces the principle that 'an opposite presupposes its counterpart: If there is a natural body, then there is also a spiritual one.” (Ciampa and Rosner)

I Corinthians 15:45-49 – The argument here centers on a contrast between the first Adam (the man of dust) and the last Adam (the man of heaven). Their respective origins are going to also be their final destinations.

Horsley “suggests that he is borrowing and reversing a Corinthian interpretation of Gen. 1.26-27 as the origin of the prototype (or perhaps 'image') of the 'spiritual' person and Gen. 2.7 as the origin of the 'physical / soul-like' person.”

“Paul picks up on the Adam-Christ analogy from vv. 21-22. Just as believers have shared the earthly body of the first man, so also will they bear the heavenly body of the second man. This of course is the key to everything.” (Fee)

I Corinthians 15:50-58 – The end of the chapter concludes with a description of the time of the Second Coming when the perishable bodies of those alive at the time will be instantly transformed into imperishable ones.

Lowery says concerning v. 58, “Paul's doctrinal declarations led to practical directives and his chapter's conclusion was no exception. The Corinthians were urged to stand firm in the apostle's teaching (v. 2) unmoved by the denials of false teachers (cf. Eph. 4:14). This certainty, especially concerning the Resurrection, provided an impetus to faithful service (cf. 1 Cor. 3:8; Gal. 6:9), since labor in the resurrected Lord is not futile (kenos, 'empty'; cf. 1 Cor. 15:10,14,17,30-32).”

THE RAISING OF LAZARUS (JOHN 11:38-44)

 

                              “Never Too Late” (collage, 2009)

I have already written two posts on this subject: “Martha: Part 2 (John 11)” and “Jesus Wept.” But I would like to concentrate on the last part of this resurrection story, utilizing only articles in the very helpful IVP compendium Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (J.B Green, J.K. Brown, and N. Perrin, ed.).

John 11:38

Bauckman points to John 11:3,33,38 and 12:27 as places where we can clearly see Jesus' human emotions coming to the forefront.

John 11:39

“In John 11, the editorial comment in John 11:2 provides us with a clear Christian use of ho kyrios ['the Lord']. Also, Martha's address to Jesus in John 11:27, uttered together with a christological confession, is probably more than a respectful way of addressing her teacher, but the other uses of kyrie in the chapter (Jn 11:3,12,21,32,34,39) could be rendered as 'sir.' But even here ambiguity remains...”

(Witherington III)

“Prior to burial in a rock-cut tomb, the body was washed and then wrapped in a cloth shroud (e.g. Jn 11:44), though the decay of such clothes makes it a rare archeological discovery. Mourners applied ointments and aromatic spices to the corpse, not as a preservative (the body was expected to decay within a year for possible reburial), but in order to reduce the unpleasant small in the tomb [see the comment by Martha in this verse].” (Chapman)

John 11:40

K.L. Anderson: “As the last of the seven authenticating miracles or 'signs,' it points to the climax of divine revelation in Christ and reveals God's glory (Jn 11:4,40; cf. Jn 1:14). It demonstrates that Christ is the one who gives eternal life (Jn 11:25; cf. Jn 5:25).”

Dennis: “'Glory' is used more often in John's Gospel (noun 19x, verb 23x) than in any of the Synoptic Gospels, indicating that the concept is of particular importance for Johannine Christology. John carries over the basic uses of 'glory' in the Old Testament and the Synoptics, such as glory as social praise, honor, approval and reputation (Jn 5:44; 7:18; 8:50; 12:43), and glory as the radiant presence of God (Jn 11:4,40; 17:5)...In John's Gospel....Christ's glory is exclusively a present reality in that John insists that the divine glory is present in Jesus' incarnation, ministry and death.”

Twelftree: “In using 'sign' for the miracle, John is saying that, like the parables of the Synoptic Gospels, the miracles point beyond the immediate to the identity or glory of Jesus and his filial relationship, even identity, with the Father...the reader is alerted to the glory of Jesus being seen not only in the story of Jesus' death, but also in the signs [such as John 11:40]. As in the Synoptics, the miracles are realizations of God's present reign...Even in the most spectacular miracle – the raising of a dead man – Jesus is still a human who weeps (Jn 11:35), for he is 'the Word become flesh' (Jn 1:14).”

“The statements [in John] related to the sending of Jesus focus on his obedience to and dependence on the Father. Jesus as the one sent is to bring glory and honor to the one who has sent him (Jn 7:18; 8:50,54; 11:4,40).” And that involves doing His works and speaking His words. (Schnabel)

Parenthetically, it should be noted that the ubiquitous number “seven” in John's writings appears here in that the 42 references to “glory” is the product of 6 and 7. Also, this verse with the parallel expression in verse 4 serves as an inclusio to bracket the whole resurrection story:

“This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” (John 11:4)

“Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (John 11:40)

John 11:41

M.M. Thompson notes, “Although not appearing as a character in the narrative [i.e. John's Gospel], the Father nevertheless remains active.” Among the many examples he cites is v. 41 in which He hears the Son.

John 11:41,43

Wahlen tabulates the various healings in this gospel, including the three occasions in which Jesus raises the dead: Jairus's daughter, the widow's son at Nain, and Lazarus. The first two examples involve Jesus commanding the dead to rise as well as Him touching them. Only in the case of Lazarus is the raising accomplished without touch, but it was accompanied by a prior prayer to God, unlike the other two times. Jesus' miracles can't be reduced to a simple formula.

John 11:41-44

Crump: “The resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44) serves to demonstrate that Jesus' petitions are always answered positively (Jn 11:21-22; 41-44) because he only asks according to God's will, which means that he always prays 'in the name of the Father.'”

John 11:42,44

“As in the Synoptics, Jerusalem divides in response to Jesus. Some believe (Jn 2:23; 7:40-41; 8:31; 9:36-38; 11:45; 12:11), even among the authorities (Jn 11:42; 19:38-39), although their faith can be of the wrong kind (Jn 2:24; 8:31-59), insufficient (Jn 7:40-41) or fickle (Jn 11:45; 12:11).” (Walton)

“Signs often lead to faith in this Gospel [as in John 11:15,42]. But while faith in response to signs is better than no faith..., it must mature, if given time or testing, to full faith...Genuine, saving faith must both recognize Jesus' divine identity (Jn 20:28-31) and persevere to the end (Jn 8:30-32).” (Keener)

John 11:44

“The miracle also foreshadows Jesus' own death and resurrection. The description of Lazarus' tomb and grave clothes (Jn 11:38-39,44) parallels the details concerning Jesus' burial and empty tomb (Jn 19:40; 20:7). However, Lazarus came out of the tomb still bound in wrappings; the resurrected Jesus left his wrappings in the tomb, neatly folded.” (Anderson)

"KEEP THE FAITH" (II TIMOTHY 4:7)

 When I was living in upstate New York there was a devout Catholic coworker of mine who would always tell me “Keep the faith” every time we parted. I just realized that I had never looked through the Bible to see if that phrase actually occurred there and if so, what meaning it had.

Word Definitions

Faith: Consulting an exhaustive concordance, one can easily see that “faith” appears only rarely in the Old Testament. As for its meaning in the New Testament, the most common Greek word translated in that way is the noun pistis (or its corresponding verb pisteuo). Vine says this concerning pistis: “primarily, firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing..., is used in the N.T. always of faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual.” Then, most importantly, Vine outlines the three elements that are encompassed by pistis: “(1) a firm conviction, producing a full acknowledgment of God's revelation or truth, e.g., 2 Thess. 2:11,12; (2) a personal surrender to Him, John 1:12; (3) a conduct inspired by such surrender, 2 Cor. 5:7. Prominence is given to one or another of these elements according to the context. All this stands in contrast to belief in its purely natural exercise, which consists of an opinion held in good faith without necessary reference to its proof.”

Note that Vine's definition includes not only an internal mindset but also the practical outworking of that mindset in our lives. In this manner, we can see that there is really no contradiction between the writings of James and Paul on the subject of faith.

Michel adds, “'Repentance from dead works' and 'faith in God' were important elements in the teaching of the primitive Christian catechism (Heb. 6:1). More important is the pointed use of pistis in the context of Pauline theology to denote the reception of Christian proclamation and the saving faith which was called forth by the gospel (Rom. 1:8; 1 Thess. 1:8). For Paul pistis is indissolubly bound with proclamation. Early Christian missionary preaching thus brought faith into sharp focus.”

Keep: Then we come to the verb “keep,” which translates several Hebrew and Greek words. In the OT there are three main words which convey this basic meaning. Natsar means to watch or reserve and appears often in the Wisdom Literature; asah denotes doing or performing and often refers to ceremonies and holy days; and the most common word shamar has the basic meaning of “observe, take heed.” In the NT, the verbs tereo (keep, watch, observe) and katecho (take, possess, retain, hold fast) are the most commonly employed terms. It is from that latter Greek word that we get our English “catechism,” that which is to be held fast.

Old Testament Formulations

As far as I could determine, there is no exact appearance of the phrase “keep the faith” in the OT. But the general concept is certainly conveyed by some equivalent expressions. Below are just a few representative examples:

    Leviticus 18:5 – “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the LORD.” A promise from God is attached to this admonition.

    Deuteronomy 33:9b – Speaking of the Levites, Moses says, “They observed your word and kept your covenant.” The covenant included the idea of a close relationship between God and the Israelites as a whole as well as each individual.

    Psalm 78:7 – The Psalmist says God taught the Israelites, “so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.” Here we have both positive and negative definitions of keeping the faith.

    Psalm 119 – If you want to see a complete compendium of synonyms for both “keep” and “faith” in an OT context, you cannot do better than read through this whole Psalm. Practically every verse expresses this concept in one way or another.

Of course, the epitome of keeping the faith in the OT is exemplified by observing the Ten Commandments. After a repetition of them in Deuteronomy 5, Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:5 – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all our soul, and with all your might.” So in these two chapters we have all three aspects of the NT pistis laid out by Vine above. Such faith begins with recognition of God as the only source of truth, includes a personal commitment to Him and all He stands for, and culminates in appropriate actions on our part that are in line with His will.

New Testament Formulations

Here is a quick survey of some of the key NT passages expressing equivalents to “keep the faith,” beginning with statements coming from Jesus Himself:

    Matthew 19:17b – “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Apparently, the young man to whom this was addressed had actually kept all of the Ten Commandments. However, when Jesus then advised him to give all his possessions to the poor and follow Him, the man went away sorrowful.

    Luke 8:15 – In this conclusion to Jesus' parable of the soils, those seeds which were successful in growing and multiplying are said to be those who “when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance.” Thus, as James says, we need to be “doers of the word, not just hearers.”

    John 8:51-52 – In this passage, Jesus not only tells the critical Jews that “whoever keeps my word will never see death” but also proceeds to accuse them in vv. 54-55 of not knowing God. Thus, he reveals to them that they have not met the second of Vine's definitions for “faith,” having a personal relationship with Him.

    John 14-15 – Jesus reiterates his above accusation in 14:21 as well as summarizing much of the OT commandments under the category of love for one's fellow man and extends them by adding the command to keep his own words (see 14:15;23; 15:10;20).

    Acts 14:22 – As Paul and his companions return to cities they had already evangelized, Paul encourages the believers to “continue in the faith.” Obviously it is not just a once-only thing.

    I Corinthians 11:2 – This congregation is commended for maintaining “the traditions just as I handed them on to you.” Thus, to the OT faith in God and the keeping of Jesus' words, we are instructed to keep the words of those to whom Jesus entrusted the faith.

    I Corinthians 16:13 – And then toward the end of the letter Paul admonishes them to “Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.”

    Colossians 1:23 – Paul tells the members of this congregation that they will be presented blameless before God “provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith.”

    II Thessalonians 1:4 – And again in this verse, Paul stresses the necessity of remaining steadfast in the faith despite afflictions which they may undergo.

    I Timothy 6:13-14 – In an interesting variation on common OT teachings, Paul charges Timothy to “keep the commandment,” rather than the commandments.

    I John – This letter is known for its constant repetition of just a few key themes. Thus, it is no surprise that seven times John stresses the necessity of the believer to “keep” the word or commandments.

    Jude 3 – Even in this short letter, we find a variation on the same idea when the addressees are urged to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

    Revelation – And in this final book of the Bible we are instructed to keep the things written in the book (1:3; 22:7,9), the word (2:26; 3:8), and the commandments (12:17; 14:12) as another example of the number seven in John's writings.

II Timothy 4:7

Actually, it is only here in the Bible that we have the exact formulation we have been searching for. Paul says to Timothy, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. But it turns out that this third metaphor can be understood in at least three different ways:

“I have kept faith”

This is the basic understanding of commentators such as Spicq and Brox. It is also indicated in translations such as NEB (“kept faith”), Phillips (“kept true to him”), and the alternative TEV translation of “been true to my promise.” That understanding, according to Hanson (who does not subscribe to it) indicates “perhaps keeping faith with God, Christ, his baptismal confession, or his commission as an apostle.” And D. Guthrie similarly rejects this idea, which “has been understood by some writers to refer to the athlete's promise to keep the rules, or to the military man's oath of fidelity (Calvin).”

Hendricksen: “Here as in I Tim. 6:12, the meaning is probably not, 'I have kept the pledge' (or 'fidelity') nor 'I have maintained the true doctrine' ('faith' in the objective sense), but, in harmony with the present context, 'I have retained my personal trust in God, my confidence in all his Christ-centered promises.'”

Lea echoes Hendricksen's understanding of Paul's assertion: “'To keep the faith' may have involved either maintaining the sound doctrine of Christianity intact or keeping a loyalty to the trust the Father had given him. In light of the fact that the phrase 'kept the faith' seems to be a fixed formula for maintaining a personal trust, the latter option seems more likely.”

“I have kept the faith”

Knight explains that 'the faith' may have been utilized by Paul “in a subjective or objective sense, i.e. whether he is saying that he has kept on believing or that he had preserved 'the faith' intact. He opts for the objective meaning, in concert with other teachings in the Pastoral Epistles [see some of them quoted above]...Further, since the other two verbs [in v. 7] emphasize perseverance it is likely that this nuance of ['kept] is intended here as well.”

Those who ascribe to this view generally treat “I have kept the faith” as a different type of metaphor than the first two in the verse. For example, Guthrie states that “since the apostle has urged his lieutenants many times to guard the deposit [i.e., body of apostolic teaching], it is possible that the same metaphor of a steward is in mind.” This is certainly the understanding of the next four scholars quoted:

Stibbs defines 'the faith' in this case to be “the gospel, or deposit of doctrine, entrusted to Paul. This he has successfully guarded (cf. 1:14).”

Nute feels that the statement “may well correspond to the earlier references to guarding the deposit (cf. 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12,14).”

Litfin says that the phrase “draws again on the image of faithfulness in one's stewardship of Christian faith (2 Tim. 1:14).”

Ward: “It seems to mean that the faith is intact in my hands. It has not been lost through carelessness, abandoned through frivolity, neglected through underestimation. The deposit has been guarded and is still safe.”

Both meanings are intended

Those reading the above comments may be understandably confused and wonder whether there is really that much difference between the objective and subjective interpretations. If so, then Towner's view may appeal to you more than either of the two above options.

“Within these letters to coworkers, the 'faith' word group is a dominant feature of the theological and ethical vocabulary, expressing ideas ranging from 'the faith' (noun) as the objective content of Christian belief, to the act of believing in God/Christ (verb), to 'faithfulness' (adj.; of believers), to trustworthiness (adj. of sayings; cf. 1 Tim 1:2)...This is a case where the ambiguity of the reference to 'keeping the faith' intentionally invites the wider rather than the narrower of possible meanings: if the widest meaning is intended (the loyalty of the apostle), it must incorporate the narrower specifics.”

FOUR NEW TESTAMENT EXORCISMS (MARK 1:21-28; 5:1-20; ACTS 16:16-18; 19:13-17)

“From the stories (e.g., Mk 1:21-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29) and the summaries, the most frequent type of Jesus' healings is exorcism, often listed separately (e.g., Mt 8:16-17 // Mk 1:32-34 // Lk 4:40-41; Mk 3:10-11 // Lk 6:17-18; Mt 10:1 // Lk 9:1).” (Bell) In addition, Jesus' disciples were given the same authority to cast out demons in His name. I would like to just zero in on the four incidents mentioned in the title above since they are narrated in more detail than the others.

As with the miracle stories in the Bible, the exorcisms cannot be subsumed under a simple literary formula as form-critics attempt to do. If there is such a thing as a standard format of an exorcism, it is said to consist of the following general elements:

1. The exorcist approaches the afflicted person.

In other words, the exorcist is supposed to be the one to make the first move in the process in order to take the initiative.

2. The source of the exorcist's power is recognized by the evil spirit.

There is some controversy among Bible scholars on this point, with some feeling that this is the opening move on the spirits' part since knowing an opponent's name is one means of gaining control over them. H. Anderson thus states that in the Mark 5 example, “the first play of the demon was to get the name of his opponent right in order thereby to disarm him of his power.”

Mann similarly says, “The question What is your name? is Jesus' acknowledgment of the ancient belief that knowledge of a name gave power over demons as well as enemies.”

Others just feel that it is a recognition on the spirits' part that they are up against a formidable foe.

3. The exorcist determines the spirit's name.

In the same manner, the exorcist must now even the playing field by learning the name of his opponent. Marcus says, “In magical contexts, knowing the name of a god or demon grants power over it.” Anderson echoes this belief: “Part of the strategy of the exorcist was to find out the demon's name in order to gain control over him. For the first narrators of this story [i.e. Mark 5] Legion may have been thought of as a boast of the demoniac whereby he unwittingly divulged his name, or as an evasion...For Mark, however, the question by Jesus and the immediate admission of the demon's name no doubt illustrate Jesus' amazing authority.”

4. The exorcist then pronounces the words, “I adjure you to come out.”

The actual wording here is felt by some to have been necessary to effect the exorcism. Marcus notes, “'To adjure' is standard exorcistic terminology.” Thus, Anderson's explanation of the Mark 5 exorcism goes on to say, “Failing in his attempt to overcome the exorcist, and apparently more than ever conscious of his mighty power, the demon then implores Jesus in strong language. “I adjure you by God, do not torment me...”

5. The spirit leaves and the afflicted party is healed.

In some cases such as in Acts 16, it is not said where the spirit ends up, but in others it appears that it must now inhabit another body. The “Legion” in Mark 5 do not want to end up in the abyss, and therefore they ask to be allowed to enter the swine instead. But in both cases, the possessed person is restored to his or her normal condition. As Neil says regarding Acts 16, “Paul's motive in exorcizing the evil spirit is attributed more to irritation than compassion. The effect is, however, to restore the girl to sanity.”

6. Awe and fear fills the on-lookers.

Ideally this leads to increased recognition of the power invoked by the exorcist. For example, in Mark 1 the result is that Jesus' fame begins to spread to others. In Mark 5, after the legion of spirits have drowned the swine they possessed, the observers are awestruck. “Some have speculated that their fear has to do with the economic loss Jesus' healing has brought about...But in the story it is the townspeople, not the herders, who ask Jesus to leave, and no hint is given that they are the owners of the pigs.” (Marcus)

If the above steps are said to represent the general rule for an exorcism, in the New Testament it appears to be a rule meant to be broken or subverted, as can be seen below:

    1. As to who is the party initiating the exorcism process, only in the last case of Acts 19 do the would-be exorcists do the initiating, and they are spectacularly unsuccessful in their results.

    2. The spirits in the first three stories all recognize the divine power at work in each case to be, respectively, the Holy One of God, Jesus Son of the Most High God, and slaves of the Most High God.

As Bruce puts it, “The superior authority which such spirits had recognized when Jesus Himself commanded them to leave their victims was equally recognized when His name was invoked by one of His apostles and proved as potent in exorcism as in other forms of healing.”

“As a term for God, 'Most High' has roots both in the OT...and in Greek religion...so that in our passages [in Mark 5] it is appropriately employed by a Gentile demoniac...A particularly close parallel to our passage is provided by Acts 16:17...These exorcistic usages of 'Most High' may reflect its employment in Psalm 91, a text that from its inception as used as a charm against evil spirits.” (Marcus) But if that is so, it is most odd that it would be the evil spirits themselves who use the term.

And one might think that these spirits were giving a powerful testimony of Jesus' identity before others and therefore should not have been silenced. “Yet Jesus exorcised them, and would not accept their testimony as legitimate preaching of the gospel (Mk. 1:34; 3:11,12), any more than Paul accepted the testimony of the spirit of divination...” (Wright)

    3. If determining the name of one's opponent is a crucial step in an exorcism, it is interesting that the only time that happens for the exorcist is in Mark 5, and in Acts 19 it is actually the fact that the spirit does not know the would-be exorcists' identity that allows him to conquer them.

    4. The next “necessary” step for a exorcist is to use precise language to drive out the demon. As mentioned above, the verb “adjure” (exhorkizo) is felt to be the correct word to use. However, as Link points out, that word only appears in the NT in Matthew 26:63 and Acts 19:13. In the first case, it is used by the high priest to try to get Jesus to say that He is the Messiah, and in the latter case it is totally ineffective when uttered by the seven sons of Sceva. The root Greek word horkizo also appears on the lips of the demoniac of Mark 4, but is never used by Jesus or his apostles. Actually, Marcus feels in that account “there is an element of deliberate parody in the demon's invocation of God and its use of exorcistic terminology, as well as in its plea that Jesus not torture it.”

    5. Obviously, the successful exorcism demands that the evil spirit depart. And that is what happens when Jesus or Paul carry it out. The failure of the sons of Sceva confirms their lack of relationship with God.

Note that this series of four narratives concerns exorcists farther and farther away in relationship to God Himself. The first two involve Jesus, who does not need to appeal to any power other than what God had already invested him with. Next, is the apostle Paul, who definitely had a warrant from the resurrected Jesus to carry out his ministry with His delegated power. Finally, we run into seven Jewish exorcists who have a third-hand relationship with God and are only able to weakly claim the name of “the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” This despite the fact that they didn't even know Paul, let alone Jesus or God the Father.

I see this sort of second- or third-hand relationship to God and His word played out in various ways within the church. There are those who take pride in the fact that their parents were in Christian ministry or brag about how popular their preacher or their denomination is, but they themselves have no real relationship with God or Jesus. As has been said many times, “God has no grandchildren.”

Even worse are those examples I have personally witnessed in which a church-goer criticizes someone for quoting Scripture in cases where it disagrees with their “higher authorities” such as a popular Christian writer or a favorite politician or just personally offends them.

    6. Ideally at this point, the power of God and Jesus should have been amply demonstrated to others so that at least they would be awestruck and perhaps convinced to to follow Christ afterward. This is certainly the case in the first story of Jesus in the synagogue. But His second exorcism, which took place in pagan territory, seems to only have enraged the populace and resulted in Jesus' departure. However, He did leave the healed man behind to spread the good news. Paul's exorcism of the slave girl also had the effect of not only getting Paul in trouble with the local authorities but also in his expulsion from the city. But before he left, Paul did have time to instill the fear of Rome into the local authorities so that they would hopefully not harass the fledgling church in Paul's absence.

Paradoxically, it was the failure of the Jewish exorcists in Acts 19 which brought about a mass turning among the populace away from their magical practices, another example of how God uses evil to promote good. As Fitzmyer puts it, “Their attempt itself reveals that no one is able to imitate Paul, the representation of the Christian God and emissary of the Christian church. The Jesus that Paul preaches is not taken over by outsiders. The invocation of Jesus' name is efficacious only when uttered by Christians. Luke is trying to get across the idea that Christianity has nothing to do with magic, and that Jesus' name is no magical-incantation formula.”

There are some additional interesting parallels between some of these four exorcisms:

    A. In the two cases in Acts, it is the exorcists themselves who are beaten as a result of their actions.

    B. There is a sort of reversal between Mark 4 and Acts 19 in that the former story has a naked demoniac becoming fully clothed at the end while the seven exorcists in Acts 19 are clothed at the beginning of the story and naked at the end. Even Paul is stripped of his clothing in Acts 16:22.

    C. There are humorous undertones in two of these episodes. Marcus says of the Mark 5 narrative: “There is...an element of burlesque comedy with the demons...This gruesomely funny conclusion emphasizes the destructiveness of the demons as well as their shortsightedness...they unintentionally destroy their new lodgings...” And I have always felt that the story of the sons of Sceva was one of the funniest in the whole Bible. But that, I suppose, is due to what my wife calls “typical male humor.”

    D. Marcus, in his comment above, brings up another common factor in some of the stories: the tendency of the impure spirits to engage in self-destructive behavior. Thus, they drive the possessed man in the synagogue to announce his presence to Jesus, the demoniac of Mark 5 to injure himself, the swine to drown, and the spirit in the slave girl to pester Paul so much that it is driven out of its home.

    E. In both of Jesus' exorcisms in Mark, the demon says, “What between you and me (or 'us')?” That is an idiomatic expression meaning, “What do you have to do with me (or 'us')?”

Here is some additional information regarding the “non-orthodox” exorcists of the time:

Wright quotes from an Egyptian magical papyrus of the type that was circulating as late as A.D. 200: “I adjure you by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus, Ioa, Iae, Iaoue, etc.” Those last three names represented various attempts to properly pronounce the powerful word Yahweh.

Neil says, “Jewish exorcists are mentioned in the Gospels (Mt. 12:27; Lk. 11:19) and, outside, Jewish magicians were notorious. Those referred to here [i.e. Acts 19] would seem to have been quacks who used the name of Jesus as a magic incantation; this practice was later condemned by the rabbis.” Several commentators add that although their father was said to be a Jewish high priest, no such name as Sceva has been found in Jewish records. He or his sons probably made up that title for use in the pagan land where he lived so as to create a built-in reputation.

In conclusion, we see that these four biblical exorcisms share certain similarities arising from the similar situations that are involved. But at the same time, there are numerous variations in how the stories play out. In other words, these stories have the 'ring of truth' instead of exhibiting the stereotyped literary form one would expect from fictional creations.