"PONDERING" IN THE BIBLE

This theme appears sporadically in both the Old Testament and New Testament, but I would just like to concentrate on a limited number of its occurrences, one in Genesis and a similar series of references in the Gospel of Luke.

Genesis 37:11

This is the well-known story of Jacob's favorite son Joseph telling his brothers and father the content of two dreams he had just had, both of which contained the obvious underlying meaning that one day his whole family would bow down to him.

Ross elaborates on this passage: “The first dream had an agricultural symbolism, possibly anticipating the manner by which Joseph would come to power in Egypt. The second dream involved celestial images – the sun, moon, and stars being easily recognized for their significance for rulership. These dreams symbolically represented the exaltation of Joseph over his whole family who incidentally, would also have positions of authority, as the symbol of stars signified – but they missed that point when they saw only the supremacy of Joseph.”

As Dictionary of Biblical Imagery puts it, “Joseph's brothers need no interpreter to understand the standard symbolism in his dreams. Even his doting father wearies of their transparent meaning.”

Ross continues by pointing out that “Jacob's response to the dream was more tempered [than that of the brothers]. At first he reacted strongly, rebuking (ga'ar) his son, but then he observed (samar) the saying. Surely Jacob must have seen the repetition of his own beginnings in the beginning of Joseph's career. Surely he knew for a fact that God could select the younger over the older and could declare his choice in advance whether by an oracle (25:33) or by a dream [cf. Genesis 28].”

In a similar vein, Hamilton says, “Jacob rebukes his son, but he does not 'hate' Joseph as did his other sons. On the contrary, something bids him exercise restraint. There may be more to this dream than he can perceive at the moment...Jacob will not jump to conclusions but will give the matter more serious reflection.”

To better understand this passage, it is necessary to know a little more regarding how dreams were sometimes viewed in the Bible. Wenham explains that “dreams were a recognized means of revelation so that 'Jacob held on to what had been said' just in case there was something in them. Perhaps this comment helps to explain why he was prepared to send Joseph to visit his brothers despite their intense hatred of him.”

By the way, the Hebrew word samar (or shamar) meaning “keep, observe” is more generally employed in the OT in the context of keeping God's commandments. The other key word in these passages is the root hsb, meaning to think on, reflect, or ponder. Hartley says, “If one reflects intently enough on God's ways, one's thinking comes to faith or to a resolution to live by the law.” In the same manner, closely reflecting on God's revelations can have the similar effect of helping one understand God's will in a particular situation.

One question that troubles some scholars is the apparent fact that this prophecy was never completely fulfilled. Here are different approaches to that problem:

Payne: “His father apparently did not so act [i.e. bow down to Joseph], but 45:11 and 47:12 note that Joseph provided for him and so became, in fact, his superior.” But he notes that the Anchor Bible translation of Genesis 47:31 says, 'And Israel [i.e. Jacob] bowed himself... as 'a gesture of mute appreciation on the part of a ...man on the point of death.'

And as to the fact that Joseph's mother could not bow down to him later since by that time she was dead, Payne responds that perhaps Joseph's step-mother Leah is meant.

Gibson takes an entirely different line, which is not generally followed by other scholars, namely, “the dream of 37:9 is meant to be seen as obviously false and originating in Joseph's own selfish ambition; hence, the question of nonfulfillment of God's prediction does not arise.” The problem with this solution is that, as others have pointed out, all the other dreams in Genesis 37-50 are fulfilled as predicted.”

Luke's Gospel

Scholars as diverse as Green, Burrows, Fitzmyer, and Dibelius agree that the birth-childhood narratives in Luke's book span from 1:57 to 2:52. And this overall section can be further divided into three basic sub-sections dealing, respectively, with the birth of John the Baptist, Jesus' birth, and Jesus' childhood. Each of these three sub-sections contains a very similar formulation regarding someone's reaction to what they have just heard or witnessed, forming a regular progression which moves the reader by degrees from one verb to another.:

“All who heard them pondered” (1:66)

“Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart.” (2:19)

“His mother treasured all these things in her heart.” (2:51a)

Luke 1:66

“The extraordinary occurrences in connection with the nativity and naming of John [the Baptist] made a deep impression on the people in the surrounding districts, the hilly regions to the south of Jerusalem. Many of them silently wondered and discussed with others what this son was going to become some day.” (Geldenhuys)

Luke 2:19

“The sense here is that Mary continued to think and ponder over the events as a whole so that she was able to discern the meaning.” (Marshall)

Luke 2:51

One might ask how Luke could know all of these details. Geldenhuys adds: “The last sentence of this verse again points to the fact that Luke obtained all these particulars directly or indirectly from Mary herself.”

Marshall says that “the incident has shown to Mary that Jesus' obedience to his parents lies within a more fundamental relationship to God...As in 2:19 there may be an allusion to the source of the narrative [i.e. Mary].”

Correlation of Genesis 37:11 with Passages in Luke

An earlier post of mine is titled “Joseph as a Type of Christ” and it contains exactly fifty ways in which the life of Joseph parallels that of Christ. And just one of those consists of this particular example. I naiively thought that I might be the first to put Genesis 37:11 together with the above passages in Luke. However, as you will see in the quotations below, that is far from the case.

For example, Hamilton says, “As with Mary, who, when she was confronted with a situation half-plausible and half-incredulous, pondered it in her heart (Luke 2:19,51), so too Jacob will not jump to conclusions but will give the matter more serious reflection.”

Then there is also the similarity in wording, as Fitzmyer elaborates: “The verb sunterein is complemented by a slightly different form in v. 51 [than in Luke 2:19], diaterein, 'keep, cherish.' The latter is used in the LXX [Greek Septuagint translation] of Gen 37:11...and Dan 4:28...Both the Genesis and Daniel passages show a person puzzled by what he has heard, keeping the words in mind in an effort to fathom their meaning. This too would be the picture of Mary here as the next phrase makes clear.”

“The wording, especially in the version of Luke 2:51 (he mater autoo dieterei panta rhe mata, 'his mother treasured all these things') closely resembles that of [the Greek version of] Gen. 37:11 (ho de pater autou dieter esen to rhema, 'his father kept [or treasured] the matter'). In both, the parent awaits the unfolding of God's work in the child. Nevertheless, the fact that the two Lukan verses (2:19,51) differ in form may imply that Luke did not have one particular text in mind.” (Pao and Schnabel)

THE NARNIA CHRONICLES -- BIBLICAL ECHOES

The Narnia Chronicles – Biblical Echoes

These seven books by C.S. Lewis are admirably written to give equal enjoyment to those of any age. Lewis not only tells an interesting interrelated set of adventure stories, but there are many theological points made along the way as well as purposeful parallels with events and personages found in the Bible. They are best enjoyed if read in the order intended by the author, which is not the order in which he actually wrote these fiction books. Most importantly, The Magician's Nephew should be read first and The Last Battle last. Without giving away too much of the actual plots, here is a very brief guide to some of the echoes they contain of biblical themes.

By the way, there are actually Christian guide books available to use these seven books as the basis of a series of Sunday school lessons. And if you are interested in a fairly short dramatic reading for two men and two woman based on some of these books, one I designed can be found on this blog site under the titles: “Alpha and Omega: Parts 1 and 2.”

The Magician's Nephew

In this book we get our first glimpse of Narnia, a sort of parallel universe to ours populated mainly by talking animals. We are allowed to see the actual creation of this land through Lewis' almost poetic description which has notable similarities to the events in Genesis 1.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

A number of important biblical themes are encapsulated in this, his most famous, book in the series. The Fall of Genesis 3 is reenacted as one of the children who enters Narnia falls under the spell of Satan (as a wicked witch). He is only saved when Aslan, the powerful ruler-lion as the type of Christ, sacrifices his life to redeem the boy and defeat the force of evil.

A dramatized form of this book appeared on TV years ago and became the topic of discussion by a group of us chemists in our break room the following morning. A friend of mine was confused about the plot since it seemed to make no sense to him that the lion would come back to life after being killed. This was interesting in that that particular chemist was raised and educated in Catholic schools. It actually took an atheist at our table to be the first to point out to him that this was obviously the story of Christ's atoning death and resurrection.

The Horse and His Boy

This book is filled with a number of battles between the forces of good in Narnia and those of evil, just as seen in I-II Kings. The similarity is especially seen in the names of some of the characters. For example, one of the arch-traitors in the Narnia Chronicles appears here under the name Rabadash, a man who attempts unsuccessfully to deliver Narnia into the hands of their enemies, only to be sent back to them in the form of a jackass. The biblical parallel appears in II Kings 18-19 in the person of the Rabshakeh who unsuccessfully tries to talk Israel into surrendering to the Assyrian forces and must return to his people as a failure. That parallel is strengthened when one realizes that the Assyrian Rabshakeh reports to his superior officer called the Tartan just as Rabadash reports to the Tarkaan in C.S. Lewis' book.

In addition, there is an interesting theological point regarding the subject of providence in that the title characters of the book, Bree and Shasta, realize at the end that all the events, both good and “evil,” they had been experiencing were actually the personal doing of Aslan himself, designed expressly to guide their actions toward the desired conclusion. I can look back at my own life to realize that even some of my greatest disappointments turned out to be my greatest blessings in the long run.

Prince Caspian

In this book, the children return to the land of Narnia after many years have elapsed there while only a few on earth, and the magical creatures are all in hiding from their enemies. The youngest child, Lucy, is the first one to catch sight of Aslan although it takes much longer for her brother and cousin to do so. Only then do the memories of their previous time there come back fully to them. One of the themes of this book appears to be the fact that as real as Bible stories are to us when we are quite young, as we age it sometimes becomes difficult to maintain that firm belief after we begin to grow up, even though they are still as true as ever. Sometimes we need help from above to recapture that earlier childlike faith.

There is also the reverse story of a dwarf who was raised among those who were afraid of Narnia, its inhabitants, and its leader Aslan. For that person, it took much more convincing before he realized that he had been brainwashed by his society for years. One can see the same thing on occasion in the conversion of those raised in an officially atheistic country. When they become exposed to the truth for the first time, some happily make an almost overnight change and become especially loyal believers.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

In this adventure, two of the children and their thoroughly obnoxious cousin Eustace enter the world of Narnia again through the painting of ship at sea. Eustace typifies the sort of product that results from a thoroughly “modern” education in which it is taught that all that exists is only which can be scientifically proved or experienced with one's own senses. Therefore everything else is treated as utter nonsense. I had another chemist friend at work who was the epitome of this attitude. His greatest scorn was saved for all that Walt Disney stood for, as well as any form of musical entertainment. He once told a group of us that he could not for the life of him understand how grown men and women could appear on screen dancing and singing without being thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Once Eustace experiences Narnia for himself, he becomes changed for life – for the better in every way. Similarly, after retirement my friend at work ended up returning to the church in which he was raised.

Also on this voyage, we become reacquainted with the lovable mouse-warrior Reepicheep (try reading it backwards while eliminating the mouse-cheeps and you will come up with his real-life counterpart, the Apostle Peter.) He is the epitome of the rash and often mistaken, but brave, St. Peter, who goes on to found the church.

The Silver Chair

This entry into the series is most interesting from what it says regarding the subject of Christian apologetics. Some of the Narnian children stumble into a cave and are captured by the stunted inhabitants of an underground land who have never been outside. The evil queen of that land tries to convince the children with her hypnotic voice that they have merely been imagining all of the wonders of an outside world which they have been describing. These are obviously only the result of wish fulfillment. In this manner, C.S. Lewis takes a potshot at Sigmund Freud and his book Moses and Monotheism in which the famous psychoanalyst attempted to explain that the whole notion of a benevolent creator God was invented in Moses' mind as a result of his growing up without a father. Because of that, Freud reasons, Moses came to imagine a sort of ultimate Father to fill that vacuum, one who was both loving and all-powerful.

The Last Battle

The Second Coming of Christ/Aslan in judgment over all the inhabitants of Narnia is presented here. Those who have always followed Aslan are overjoyed to see the loving beast and enter into eternal life with Him. But the vast majority of the pagan Calormenes who worshiped the bloodthirsty god Tash instead do not see Aslan as loving at all, but only the violent Tash who destroys them all except for one lone Calormene who had always pictured Tash as someone more in the image of Aslan. That one pagan is saved, reflecting Lewis' idea that even some who have never known Christ in their lifetime may experience salvation – a notion not shared by all Christian theologians even though there may be hints of that idea found in Romans 1:16-23.

 

I TIMOTHY 6:17-19

Most Bible commentators recognize these three verses as a discrete section. It can be diagrammed as shown below as a series of three contrasting sub-sections.

                                        Figure 1: The Structure of I Timothy 6:17-19

    A. Those who are now rich with wealth (17a)

          B. Do not be arrogant (17b)

                C. The uncertainty of riches (17c)

                C'. God offers all things richly (17d)

          B'. Be generous (18)

    A'. Lay away treasures for the future (19)

The four underlined words above are all derived from the same Greek root from which we get the English word “plutocrat.” Thus, we have:

    plousioi – “wealthy, rich” (plural noun or adjective) – 17a(1)

This “describes persons rich in this world's goods” according to Selter. It also appears in passages such as Matthew 19:23-24 and James 1:10-11, etc.

    ploutou – “wealth, riches” (singular noun) – 17a(2)

This term means “wealth in terms of earthly goods (as in Luke 8:14; James 5:2; and Revelation 18:17) (Selter)

    plousios – “richly” (adverb) – 17d

Vine notes that it may also be translated “abundantly.” Also, in other NT passages it is applied to the gift of the Holy Spirit, entrance into the coming Kingdom, and the indwelling of the Word of Christ.

    ploutein – “to be rich” (verb) – 18

Selter states that this word “occurs...always in a spiritual sense of God's rich grace.”

Here are some pertinent comments on this passage from the scholarly literature on the subject:

Powell: The rich have a particular obligation to be generous (1 Tim. 6:17-18), but the Bible often attributes generosity to persons who are not wealthy (Mark 12:41-44; 2 Cor. 8:2). This leads to an important observation: generosity is not simply to be equaled with extravagant giving, as motive is a significant factor. Jesus denounces those who make large gifts in order to enhance their prestige (Matt. 6:1).”

“The text of 1 Tim. 6:17-19 points toward another sense in which materialism is problematic from a biblical perspective: the desire for and the accumulation of possessions works against the ideals of communal sharing and social justice. The tenth commandment, for example, prohibits coveting as a violation against the covenant community (Exod. 20:17)...” (Downs)

Knight adds: “The rich are tempted to think that their greater monetary value indicates that they themselves are of greater worth or value. Paul forthrightly charges them through Timothy “not” to think this way (cf. Rom. 12:16; Jas. 1:10).”

Another pitfall of riches is mentioned by Polhill, who says that “the proper religious attitude is submission to God, a teaching reflected in James 6:6-7 and 1 Peter 5:5...On the other side stands the arrogant, self-confident attitude that does not recognize any dependence on God or humbly submit to his will...It is a common trap for the rich, ensnared by the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (1 Jn 2:16; cf. 1 Tim 6:17).”

But despite these negative factors often associated with being wealthy, Paul is uncommonly accepting of those who have managed to accumulate riches (as several of the scholars below point out). After all, as Ellis points out, “Paul's Aegean congregations had affluent members, as is evident...in the Pastorals from his comments on slaves and masters, and on proper attitudes for wealthy Christians (1 Tim 6:1-7, 17-19; cf. Rom 16:23; Eph 6:5-9).”

Stibbs: “Paul here completes his teaching concerning material wealth by adding to his previous negative warnings against desire for gain (vv. 6-10) some positive instruction concerning the right use of wealth by those who had it. Rich Christians need to be aware lest the possession of material wealth makes them over-confident. Their settled hope should rest, not in their wealth and its characteristic insecurity, but in God the Giver (v. 17)...Note the contrast between this world [in v. 17] and the future (v. 19; cf. Mt. 6:19-21)...the warning is enforced by giving prominence in thought not to the amount of the 'riches' but to their 'uncertainty'. Those with earthly riches are exhorted to use them to acquire better and more enduring wealth. For this they need paradoxically in deed and heart a readiness to share their material riches with others – to be liberal and generous.”

Schmidt expresses the opinion that the “Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews reflect what we might call middle-class values. These letters share an interest in contentment with one's current economic status (1 Tim 6:6-10; Heb 13:5b) and condemn love of money...without condemning those who possess much. The recommendation to the rich is 'to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share (1 Tim 6:17-18, NRSV).”

“The preceding words on wealth in vv. 6-10 were spoken to those who aspired to wealth. As a final thought Paul spoke a word to those who already had it...Paul's sound advice walks the straight line between a world-denying asceticism and a self-centered indulgence.” Guthrie agrees that “The approach to wealth is strikingly moderate.”

Hanson similarly says that the comment about God richly giving “is in line with 4:3-5, and is directed against Gnostic asceticism...He notes that there is no suggestion that the rich should share their wealth because all Christians are brothers in Christ.”

In addition is Paul's actual admonition for the rich to enjoy what they have. “This enjoyment is not the self-indulgent living criticized in 5:6, notes Fee, but is thankful acceptance of God's good gifts given for us to enjoy (cf. 4:3,4; Ec. 5:19,20; Phil. 4:12).” (Knight)

Ryken summarizes the teachings in v. 17 with the following words: “This key verse establishes three important principles: (1) God is the giver of all good things, (2) He gives people these things so they can enjoy them, (3) misuse of them consists not in enjoyment of them but in trusting in them or making idols of them.”

In closing, below are two miscellaneous comments regarding specific points within verse 19:

“The Greek tes ontos zoeo must be rendered 'life which is life indeed', bringing out vividly its contrast with life propped up by so uncertain a support as riches.” (Guthrie)

Metzger notes textual variants in this verse such as substitution of 'eternal' for 'real' as well as manuscripts which include both words.

WHO HAS DOMINION, MAN OR ANIMAL?

Concerning the familiar story of the Fall of mankind, our pastor recently noted offhand that it was a case of reversal. Whereas God originally gave dominion over the animals of the earth to Adam and Eve, in fact the snake, a created animal, co-opted that position of power so that they listened to his advice to their detriment and the detriment of all their descendants.

I confess that I had never viewed that narrative before from that particular perspective. But it is echoed in the scholarly literature on the subject. For example, Wenham states that in Genesis 2:5-3:24, “the serpent represents the animals.” Below are some additional related nuances gleaned from various commentators' words on those places in the first three chapters of the Bible in which man's position in relation to the animals is mentioned. As you will note, there are several major points in these passages on which scholarly opinion remains divided. And it all begins with the proper explanation of biblical nomenclature regarding the animal world.

Genesis 1:24-25

Hamilton: “Three categories of land creatures are described in these two verses. By cattle is meant primarily large quadrupeds which are domesticated. Reptiles (lit., 'creeping [or crawling] things') designate the legless creatures such as lizards and snakes. The third category, every kind of wild animal, is simply the Hebrew word for 'living things.'”

However, Wenham defines these three categories in a slightly different manner when he says, “The Hebrew terminology is more fluid than this translation suggests...Here the animal world is being classified into three main groups, a favorite device of Hebrew writers and legislators: domestic, wild, and small animals. The last named 'creeping things' refers to mice, reptiles, insects, and any other little creatures that keep close to the ground.”

Genesis 1:26. 28

“The new element in the creation of man was that he was to be 'in the image and after the likeness of God', which would show itself above all in his dominion over the animal creation.” (Ellison)

This doctrinal fact is found elsewhere in the Bible, for as Schaeffer says, “Perhaps one of the most striking expressions of the concept of man's dominion is found in Psalm 8:5-8 which includes the words 'Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet...” This passage may even contain a subtle reminder of the later punishment of the snake in Genesis 3:15 (“He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel”).

Genesis 2:19

“Yahweh parades before Adam members of the animal world so that the man may convey on each its name. This is the first fulfillment of God's directive in 1:26,28 to exercise authority over the animal, the fish, and the fowl. For to convey a name (qara'le) is to speak from a position of authority and sovereignty.” (Hamilton)

Similarly, Ellison explains: “In the ancient world to give a person a name was a sign of authority over him (cf. 2 Kg. 23:34; 24:17). In the man's naming of the animals was the first recorded act of dominion over them.”

Bob Dylan has written a wonderful song about Adam naming all the animals which ends just as he is beginning to give the serpent a name.

Genesis 3:1

“The original readers likely would have immediately recognized the serpent as a representation of evil since walking serpents were well-known symbols of evil in the ancient Near East...rather than simply ignore the serpent and shove him out of the garden, Eve dignifies him with an answer and thus opens herself up to persuasion...God turns the walking serpent into a slithering one and declares that there will be perpetual war between him and his offspring and the woman and hers. The New Testament sees the fulfillment of his punishment in the struggle between those who follow evil and those who follow God. God also informs the serpent that he will ultimately be vanquished, and the New Testament understands this victory to take place when Christ defeats the serpent on the cross (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9).” (Longman III)

Kline says, “The camouflaged, sinuous movement of the movement of the serpent made it symbolically suitable as a medium for the wiles of the devil. By engaging in apologetic discourse with a challenging serpent, the woman accepted Satan's violation of the law of God's kingdom whereby all things visible had been placed under man's rule. She thereby yielded to the usurped authority of Satan.” (3:2-3)

Luc: “In its first occurrence in Gen 3:1, the author, in describing the serpent as 'arum, crafty, lays an important background for the understanding of cleverness. Its phonological resemblance to 'arumin, naked (Gen 2:25) probably served to form a link between the Fall narrative and the Creation narrative...The innocence of Adam and Eve is broken by the 'craftiness' of the tempter, but the latter's success is under God's curse. The 'arum serpent is now 'arur, cursed (Gen 3:14). God's judgment on cleverness that directs people away from his word can be seen throughout the OT (e.g., the false prophets).”

“Urged by the serpent, the first human beings eat of the forbidden fruit. Human beings, who had been God-oriented, now became self-oriented...In the profound use of language in this chapter, the serpent represents the power of evil, namely, sin. Thus, this enmity points forward to the continued opposition between good and evil (cf. 4:7) and to the conflict between believers and unbelievers, which is one of the main themes in the OT.” (Paul)

Genesis 3:14-15

Hamilton feels that “The traditional translation – 'cursed are you above all cattle' – makes little sense...What is imposed on the serpent is alienation from the other members of the animal world, hence the translation 'banned' rather than 'cursed.'”

“In the first part of the curse the focus seems to be on the animal used in the temptation. A comparison used in the construction shows that the serpent would be cursed more than the rest of the animals. All creation would now lie under a curse, but the serpent more so for his part in the crime. The use of the comparative degrees recalls Genesis 3:1, where we were told the serpent was more crafty than all the other animals. The punishment was thus talionic [i.e. the punishment fits the crime].” (Ross)

“The punishment of the snake (v. 14) must not be understood as meaning that at one time it had legs. Rather, what had once seemed natural and beautiful would now be a perpetual reminder of what it had once done.” (Ellison)

Kline: “Satan's instrument, slithering in the dust, subject to trampling, becomes a symbol of his humiliation and condemnation.”

Wenham discusses the directive by God: 'On your belly you must go' by stating that “it may be noted that according to the classification of animals found in Lev 11 and Deut 14, the snake must count as an archetypal unclean animal. Its swarming, writhing locomotion puts it at the farthest point from those pure animals that can be offered in sacrifice. Within the world of OT animal symbolism a snake is an obvious candidate for an anti-God symbol, notwithstanding its creation by God.”

He adds, “The only parallel to this phrase is Lev 11:42 which brands all such creatures as unclean. It is doubtful whether this implies that snakes once had legs to walk like other animals, an idea expressed in [early Jewish sources] and periodically since. Rather, 'the narrator...contemplates the present behavior of the snake and sees in it a divine curse (Gunkel). Sjoberg...suggests this shows that the snake was actually a chameleon, which has legs and travels on its belly.”

And just to add another bit of uncertainty into the debate regarding walking snakes, there are two pieces of interesting information. (1) Ancient Jewish seals picture snakes with sets of wings. Was the snake punished by having his wings removed? (2) Fossils from Australia have provided our first evidence that snakes once had hind legs.

Stallman points out that the snake is “distinguished from the other animals in the garden in that it is aware of divine matters, has the power of speech, and is clearly not 'good' (1:31)...The curse on the snake (3:14-15) is not an etiology [i.e. the attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation] concerning the age-old antipathy between human beings and snakes, but a rich theological statement full of reversals. Once more crafty ('arum) than all other animals, now it is more cursed ('arur), once superior, now it is inferior and must forever crawl on its belly...the text...may simply be interpreting its natural mode of locomotion. Eating dust is characteristic of an enemy's humiliation (Ps 72:9; Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17)...”

Stallman adds, “Ironically, when Satan tempted Jesus, he lifted a text from a psalm that, in fact, promises victory over the evil serpent (Ps 91:11-13; cf. Gen 3:15).” This fits in well with what Van Dam has said: “The enmity of which God spoke in Gen 3:15 was a curse for the serpent but a great blessing for Adam and Eve and the believing seed. The full victory implied in these words was initially fulfilled in Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection. The final fulfillment comes. Cf. e.g., Rom 16:20; Col 2:15; Heb 2:14; Rev 12; 20:9-10.”

SUFFERING IN II TIMOTHY

 I have previously outlined the literary structure of this epistle of Paul. Below is only the portion of it which contains three teachings on suffering, which alternate between sections dealing specifically with Paul and his various associates and acquaintances within the church body. It is of interest to see what others have to say regarding the subject of suffering as revealed by Paul in this letter to Timothy.

A. Suffering (1:8-14)

B. Paul and acquaintances (1:15-18)

A'. Suffering (2:1-10)

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

B. Paul and acquaintances (4:9-15)

A. Suffering (4:16-18) – hymn ending in “Amen”

B'. Paul and acquaintances (4:19-21)

II Timothy 1:8-14

It is here in the letter that Paul begins his instructions to Timothy. He states in no uncertain terms that this younger man should not be ashamed of Paul's status as a prisoner suffering for the sake of the Gospel, but in fact should be prepared to suffer with him (v. 8). And in vv. 11-12 two key terms of v. 8 are repeated, suffer and ashamed, as Paul explains that this is his appointed fate as an apostle and teacher.

Gartner: “A further important example of fellowship in suffering is that existing between the apostle on the one hand and the local church (2 Cor. 1:6f) or an individual disciple (2 Tim. 1:8; 2:3) on the other...True suffering [like evildoers] is called suffering 'according to God's will' (1 Pet. 4:19), suffering 'in the name' of Jesus Christ (Acts 9:16; Phil. 1:29), 'for the gospel' (2 Tim. 1:8)...”

“There is in fact a fellowship of suffering and this is what the apostle had in mind. The Greek verb which gave rise to the rendering take your share of suffering might be translated by one word in English to correspond to the one word in Greek: co-suffer. It is a 'fellowship' word. Such 'co-suffering' is one part of fighting the good fight of the faith. Our Lord himself is not absent from this company. Paul could speak of 'the fellowship of his sufferings' (Phil. 3:10) and could rejoice in his own sufferings and in his flesh 'complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions' (Col. 1:24). The suffering of the atonement is not inadequate...But how could the exalted Lord suffer? He could suffer in the suffering of sympathy but not 'in the flesh.' That joyous experience was left to the apostle to 'complete.'” (Ward)

II Timothy 2:1-10

The gist of this passage is encapsulated in the opening (vv. 1-2) and closing (v. 10) verses. Paul first mentions the things Timothy has heard from him and other witnesses. These are to be passed on to others by teaching them. And at the conclusion to this passage, he mentions his own situation of suffering imprisonment so that others might be saved.

Much depends on the exact translation of “witnesses” (marturon) in v. 2. As Hendricksen states, “The word used in the original has various shades of meaning,” but in this case he feels the intended meaning is one who actually gives testimony. Hendricksen adds that “often the faithful witnesses became martyrs.”

Guthrie points out that the “statement, among many witnesses, is somewhat obscure and has proved a complexity to commentators.” He reviews four basic possibilities of interpretation, each with minor variations, without coming to any definite conclusion on the subject.

II Timothy 4:16-18

We read in these verses about another form of suffering Paul endured, the emotional suffering caused by being abandoned by those he trusted during his “first defense.” Towner says that here the theme is escalated “from the sense of isolation and negligence just expressed to the more shocking sense of culpable abandonment.” As to the specific circumstance to which an allusion is being made, Towner replies that “whether 2 Timothy envisages his first or second imprisonment...we would assume that the outcome was not the dismissal of charges against Paul.”

But then Towner adds that the Greek word for 'forsaken' is the same one appearing in the Septuagint version of Psalm 21:2, the identical OT text that Jesus quoted while on the cross ('My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'). “With this allusion Paul (however obliquely) taps into the psalmist's puzzled question and to the theme of messianic sufferings. His intention is to link up the somber statements of abandonment in the letter, identifying the experience as being symbolic of the cruciform path walked by the Messiah...”

“The pregnant construction sosei eis, 'bring safely into'...with 'the heavenly kingdom' as the object of the preposition [in v. 18] implies deliverance from this world with all its evils and from death in all its aspects...” Only then does Paul envision a complete cessation of his sufferings. (Knight)

II Timothy 3:11-12

Neither is mention of suffering ignored in Chapter 3. Witness the reference to suffering in conjunction with “persecution” in 3:11a. And that latter word is repeated in 3:11b and 3:12.

Nute: “The list of qualities in v. 10 [which had guided the apostle's life] continues in v. 11 with persecutions, sufferings, and in one sense these can be regarded as just as much the result of personal purpose as the rest. “The example he has given consists in his determination to continue his work for God despite the afflictions which this must inevitably bring. Paul selects for mention those occasions which occurred immediately prior to Timothy's conversion, and which probably profoundly influenced him at the time...On the one hand he encourages Timothy with this word, and on the other proceeds to warn him that everyone who is determined to live a godly life must anticipate persecution (cf. Ac. 14:22; I Th. 3:4).”

LUKE 4:14-30

                             Figure I: The Literary Structure of Luke 3-4

A. John’s ministry (3:1-18)

B. Herod’s opposition (3:19-20)

C. The sign at Jesus’ baptism (3:21-22)

                                    C'. The sign of Jesus’ genealogy (3:23-38)

B'. Satan’s opposition (4:1-15)

A'. Jesus’ ministry (4:16-30)

(a) The key verb “preach” appears in this unit only in A (3:3) and A' (4:18-19).

(b) John’s last words in Section A correspond to Jesus’ first words in A' in that they both associate Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

Sections A (3:4-6) and A' (4:18-21) teach that salvation has arrived in the person of Jesus. These units both contain quotations identified as from Isaiah the prophet as well as the word “release,” occurring only twice elsewhere in the Gospel.

                                          Figure II: The Structure of Luke 4:14-30

1. Jesus returned to Galilee (14a)

        2. filled with the power of the Spirit, taught in the synagogues (14b)

                3. and was praised for his teaching (15)

                        4. teachings at Nazareth synagogue: Part 1 (16-21)

                            a. and stood up (16)

                                b. He unrolled the scroll (17)

                                        c. and read from Isaiah (18-19)

                                b'. He rolled up the scroll (20a)

                            a'. and sat (20b)

                                        c'. and interpreted the prophecy (21)

                3'. All spoke well of him (22a)

                        4'. teachings at Nazareth synagogue: Part 2 (22b-27)

                                a. They said (22b)

                                        b. He said (23a)

                                a'. You will say (23b)

                                        b'. He said (24)

                                                (1) Elijah example (25-26)

                                                (1') Elisha example (27)

        2'. When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage (28)

                3'. and they tried to kill him (28-29a)

1.' but Jesus passed through them and went on his way (29b-30)

The dual center of this literary composition lies in Jesus' words in sections 4 and 4' to those in the synagogue. This two-part sermon of Jesus reminds me powerfully of another story that Luke tells in his two-part history, namely, the teaching of Stephen to the high priest and council narrated at length in Acts 6-8. Matthews says, “Elements of Stephen's trial and death reflect the passion of Jesus.” However, I feel that the echoes in Acts there are just as strong with the elements of Luke 14:

Both speakers' words to the Jewish audience can be broken down into two parts. Part 1 of Jesus' speech reveals that He is the predicted Messiah while Part 2 characterizes the Jews as unbelievers compared to their Gentile counterparts. These same two points are treated in the reverse order in Acts as Stephen first rehearses in detail the many examples of prior disobedience of the Jews to the word of God and then follows this by the revelation that Jesus the Messiah they crucified is now at God's right hand.

The major difference in the two incidents is that although both speakers are taken out to be stoned to death for blasphemy, Stephen is martyred while Jesus escapes only to be crucified years later.

TOMORROW, TOMORROW

 Little Orphan Annie sings in the musical “Annie” the words: “Tomorrow, tomorrow! I love ya tomorrow! You're always a day away!” as an expression of eternal hope that things will eventually get better. But this is not exactly what the authors of the Bible had in mind when they talked about “tomorrow” in passages such as Proverbs 27:1; Luke 12:16-21; and James 4:13-14. In fact, you might say that the teachings of the Bible and Annie's words were quite at odds when it came to that subject, at least in in regard to those particular verses.

Proverbs 27:1

“Do not flatter yourself about tomorrow for you never know what a day will bring forth.” (NEB) Other translations substitute “boast” in place of “flatter yourself.”

“If the most immediate and most visible future is not under human control and is uncertain, how much less the distant future. A wise person, says McKane, 'must not speak nor plan as if he himself had full disposal of his destiny and power over his future [cf. 1 K. 20:11].' Other proverbs and Scriptures identify God as the Father who 'gives birth' to future events. He has the final word, and no human counsel can thwart it. The wise live day by day, trusting the outcome to God and being grateful to God for whatever he grants...This proverb, however, must be held in tension with those that advise one to make plans for the future (11:14; 15:22; 20:18; 21:5; 24:6,27).” (Waltke)

Waltke's last statement provides a valuable caveat to the reader.

Luke 12:16-21

This is the familiar parable of Jesus concerning a rich farmer who plans to tear down his old barns and build new ones to house his bumper crop. But he is called a fool because God announces that he will die before he has a chance to carry out his plans.

Snodgrass says regarding the context of this parable, “The whole section from 12:4-59 is artfully arranged to deal with issues of fear, anxiety, and security.” He adds that this is the only one of Jesus' parables in which God Himself appears as an actor.

After rejecting several earlier meanings proposed for this story, Snodgrass states, “Whether this parable is about the death of the individual or a warning about eschatological judgment is debated, but I see nothing to support the idea the parable was originally about the approaching eschatological catastrophe. The parable is about the death of an individual, and judgment is implicit at best, other than God's verdict that the man is a fool. The consequences of God's judgment are not specified, nor is death itself viewed as the judgment. The parable points to the uncertainty and fragility of life, but it is concerned most with God's verdict on those who trust in wealth.”

He adds, “The parable emphasizes how little control the man actually has over his life, despite what he thinks. His prosperity does not result from his effort; the land prospers (v. 16), not his work. Even what he thinks is most intimately his own – his soul – is only on loan and can be demanded at any time.”

And Ellis warns the reader that the parable is “not to show the sinfulness of greed but the futility of it.”

In a similar vein, Craddock says, “The preacher will want to be careful not to caricature the farmer and thus rob the story of the power of its realism. There is nothing here of graft or theft; there is no mistreatment of workers or any criminal act. Sun, soil, and rain join to make him wealthy. He is careful and conservative. If he is not unjust, then what is he? He is a fool, says the parable. He lives completely for himself, he talks to himself, he plans for himself, he congratulates himself. His sudden death proves him to have lived as a fool. 'For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?' (9:25).”

James 4:13-14a

The startling admonition here is also one that should make each of us sit up and listen: “Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and get gain'; whereas you do not know about tomorrow.” (RSV)

Tasker puts it best when he states that this is a warning for Christians “of the worldliness which causes its victims to neglect God and to arrange their lives as though He did not exist and as if they alone were masters of their destiny.”

Tasker feels these people were “self-confident traveling traders, probably Jews, with whom his readers would be familiar...The following words, which James puts into the mouth of an imaginary group of itinerant merchants as they draw up their plans for the immediate future express their unqualified confidence that that future is in their own keeping. The exact day of their departure..., the precise time the contemplated journey will take, the particular city they will visit, such a city (perhaps pointing it out to one another on the map); the length of their proposed stay in it, a year; the business that they intend to transact; and the profit they assume will result from their bargaining – all these matters, they take it for granted, are their concern and no one else's.”

I had the unfortunate experience years ago of following behind a couple of young businessmen walking on their way from Sunday school to church services. All they could talk about were their grandiose plans for making a pile of money before they were in their 40's. And at my first attendance at one of the evening Bible studies at that same church, the men there were gathered around in a circle trying to top one another with stories of the great business opportunities they envisioned for themselves. When I managed to shoehorn my way into the circle, one of the men asked what business was in. When I replied that I was employed as a research chemist for a company in town, one of the men (who became an elder of that church a few years later) sneered and said to the group sarcastically, “A chemist, just what we need in this group!” In other words, the only value in his eyes to meeting another acquaintance was as a future business contact.

And I wasn't at all surprised when years later, a former associate pastor at that church told me that at a leadership meetings with the elders (all but one of whom were independent businessmen chosen for their supposed status in the community), one of them made it a habit to refer to the parishioners as “giving units,” not human beings made in the image of God but instead those whose main utility was to bring more money into the church coffers

REFINING IN THE BIBLE

Although the ancient Jews were not especially noted for their overall knowledge of the theoretical sciences, they were well versed in the technology skill of purifying metal ores to obtain valuable metals such as gold and silver. Therefore it is not unusual that metallurgical terminology was often employed in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as a metaphor.

In my own experiences in the field of organic chemistry, I gained a minor reputation during my undergraduate research by being able to separate the desired chemical products from any associated impurities through techniques such as selective recrystallization and column chromatography. However, in the field of inorganic chemistry such as is the case here, completely different methodologies are employed, as described by Keener:

“Heating a furnace sufficiently allowed ancients to extract precious metals from ore: lead melts already at 327 degrees C, and its main ore would be heated to 900 or 1000 degrees C to extract silver. Gold remains long after lead, melting only at 1063 degrees C. Thus gold would remain after most other ore was removed.”

However, Keener only describes a physical process for separating metals from their ores. But it was almost always accompanied by addition of a flux which chemically reacted with the base metals present so that the resulting dross could be scooped off the top of the molten metal to further purify it. This was especially helpful in purifying gold since it is chemically inert to almost all reagents.

And as to the underlying meaning of this biblical metaphor, Keener adds:

“Believers who stand firm in the testing prove faithful; the language of 'testing' can include the nuance of those who pass the test being 'approved.' Just as testing refines gold and improves the final product as pure gold, so testing improves those who persevere through it.”

Deuteronomy 4:20 “The temperatures reached in the iron smelting furnaces were the highest known in biblical times and are used to indicate the unpleasantness of life in Egypt (Deut 4:20; I Kings 8:51; Jer 11:4).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

I Kings 8:51 “...for they are your people and heritage which you brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron-smelter.”

Cogan: “Egypt, mostly known as a 'slave-house,' was compared in Deuteronomic circles to a blast furnace used for smelting iron ore, so harsh were the conditions of life.”

Job 23:10

The second half of this verse reads, “When he tests me, I shall emerge as gold.”

“Job's use of the analogy of purifying gold for his own testing is another indication that the basic motivation for his lament is the restoration of his own honor, not the restoration of his wealth. With this metaphor Job is rebutting Eliphaz's exhortation to lay aside gold (22:24-25) and to make God his gold. Rather than owning the precious metal, Job longs for a golden character.” (Hartley)

Psalm 12:6 This verse states that God's promises are pure just as silver is refined in a furnace.

Anderson explains that “God's promises or words are compared with purified silver, which is in a sense true silver, i.e. its quality can be relied upon. This word-picture would have been well known, because the purity of silver had great importance in business transactions, for silver was one of the main media of exchange.”

Psalm 66 “For you, O God, have tested us; you have tried us as silver is tried.”

Tanner says that “the testing of v. 10 is clearly reminiscent of how the Israelites tested God at Massah (Exod. 17:7; Deut. 6:16; 33:8; Ps. 95:8-9).” Only here the tables are turned.

Proverbs 27:21 The Anchor Bible translation reads: “The crucible is for silver and the furnace for gold, and a person is tested according to his praise.”

Ruiz calls this “an idiom for removing sin from one's life.” And Waltke explains that it can mean either (a) “one is tested by the character of the one who praises him” or (b) “a person's mettle is tested by whom or what he praises.”

Isaiah 1:25 “I will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy.” Other translations read something like: “I will burn away your dross completely. I will take away all your impurities.” In either case, as Oswalt puts it, “God's hand will not be upon them to destroy but rather to restore. The slag and the tin will be removed; the rulers will be as they once were, and the city name, City of Righteousness, whether an ideal past or an actual one is in view here...the prophet looks forward to a time when God's people, having passed through the fires, will relate to him, and thus to one another, as they ought.”

Isaiah 48:10 “See, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tested you in the furnace of adversity.”

The reference is to the experience of exile in Babylon whereas in Deuteronomy 4:20 and Jeremiah 11:4 it refers to the Jews' time in Egypt. (Blenkinsopp)

Jeremiah 6:27-30 Here we have an extended metaphor in which “lead is added to silver ore in the furnace to act as a flux to remove impurities. The image speaks of God's attempt to purify Israel by removing the impurities of the wicked under the Babylonian onslaught.” (DBI)

Jeremiah 11:4 speaks of the time when God delivered the Jews from the “iron furnace” of Egypt.

Cawley and Millard say, “It marked their deliverance from the iron furnace, the smelting oven being symbolic of intense suffering.”

Ezekiel 22:17-22 states that Israel has become dross. As Cook puts it, “The judgment will be like a smelter in which base metals are removed.”

Daniel 11:35 “Some of the wise shall fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and cleansed [lit. 'made white'] until the time of the end...”

“In 11:35, the author speaks again of the wise leaders of the Jews first mentioned in 11:33 and later in 12:3,10; here the purpose of their being 'tested' is stated explicitly...The Deuteronomic theology of retribution...did allow the possibility of adversity serving as a test of fidelity or as a means of purification, as here...Our author may have had some feeling for the Maccabean revolt, but his true sympathies lay with those engaged in non-violent resistance. It was their suffering love unto death that would 'refine, cleanse, and purify' the nation and vindicate the principles of true religion which no human power can crush.” (Hartman and DiLella)

But not everyone agrees entirely with the above view. For example, Longman says, “I believe it is wrong-minded to say that the book of Daniel represents a pacifist view that waits for God the warrior to act. In the earlier historical battles of Israel, God won the war, to be sure, at places like Jericho, but that did not mean that Israel did not take action in some way. In other words, the ideology of the book has plenty of room for appreciation of armed resistance to the oppression.”

Daniel 12:10 “Many shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly.”

This verse is part of an obscure prophecy regarding the consummation of the last days. Kaiser concludes “that Daniel knew all but two aspects of the prophecies revealed to him: (1) the temporal aspects (an exclusion we share even today, as noted I Pet 1:10-12) and (2) additional information beyond that revealed to him. No prophet claimed omniscience, only an adequate, God-given knowledge of a limited topic of importance.”

Zechariah 13:8-9 The prophecy in this verse says that 2/3 of Israel will be cut off and the remaining 1/3 refined as silver or gold.

“Zechariah 13:7-9 is...a fitting conclusion to the series of shepherd-flock units, since it moves beyond the judgment envisioned in the earlier units and reveals the purification that results from such severe discipline...The image world for the first half of v. 9 is clearly that of metallurgy, a common image in prophetic literature. The third of the community which survives Yahweh's initial discipline is described as a precious metal like silver and gold. It is not certain whether the impurities which are removed through this process refer to dysfunctional qualities and patterns within the community, or to offending parties within the community.” (Boda)

I Peter 1:7

“The term rendered as genuineness was often used for unalloyed metals; fire tested their genuineness, as it tests that of believers. For believers, the figuratively fiery testing refers to sufferings in the present age; as in 4:12, it probably envisions for Peter's audience especially persecution. The imperishable inheritance of 1:4 is worth far more than perishable gold (1:7)... Gold may endure testing by fire, but faith that is tested by fire proves far more permanent and will be honored once Christ returns. This is because believers were bought not with perishable silver or gold (1:18), valuable merely outwardly (3:3), but with the far more precious blood of Christ (1:19).” (Keener)

Revelation 3:18 The letter to the church of Laodicea says, “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich.”

Mounce explains: “The gold is spiritual wealth that has passed through the refiner's fire and has been found to be totally trustworthy.”

And Morris says, “For this threefold deficiency [given in verses 15-17] the remedy in each case is Christ. From Him they should buy gold tried in the fire (cf. I Pet. I. 7), real wealth.”

 

GIDEON: MAN OF MANY NAMES

 

                     Gideon: Victory and Defeat (collage and acrylic, 2013)

The Old Testament judge Gideon is actually known by three different names in the Bible, which has confused both common readers and biblical scholars.

It is not at all unusual in the Bible for characters to be known by more than one name during their lifetime. Sometimes God (or Jesus) changes their names to better reflect their new or predicted character, and on other occasions the name change reflects the culture or society in which the person is operating (Paul/Saul).

Gideon

We might assume that this was his original name since that is how he is called at his first introduction in Judges 6:11. And it certainly well describes his character as a “hewer” or “smiter” as he cuts down his father's pagan Asherah pole. But was that name (a) assigned to him at birth, prophesying his future actions or (b) given to him only after he had performed that particular action? There are scholars on both sides of that question.

Jerubbaal

As a compound name containing the pagan deity Baal, this would seem to be a highly unlikely name for one of the foremost of the OT judges. Thus, Norman explains: “The gesture of defiance [in cutting down the Asherah] seems to signify a protest against the assimilation of the worship of Yahweh with the Baal-cult. This act is associated with the giving to Gideon of the name Jerubbaal, which is variously interpreted as 'Baal strives', 'Baal founds', or 'may Baal give increase'. Some suggest that this may have been Gideon's earliest name, reflecting the prevailing syncretism, receiving, however, a new significance of view of this act of iconoclasm.”

That explanation may seem to make little sense to you. However, consider the fact that there is no denying that Gideon's family definitely tried to combine traditional Judaism with the pagan beliefs of their neighbors. And that could well have included originally naming their son 'Baal founds' or 'may Baal give increase.'

And as to the “new significance” of that name mentioned above by Norman, Amerding elaborates: “The powerlessness of idols to aid themselves is a favorite theme of the Old Testament (I Kg. 18; I Sam. 5:1-4, etc). The Heb. text of [Judges 6] v. 31 mockingly stresses the pronouns, 'Will you contend for Baal? Or will you defend his cause?...If he is a god, let him contend for himself...' The name Jerubbaal (v. 32) completes the taunt. 'Let Baal contend', as the context demonstrates, is a challenge to the pagan god.”

Moderate and modern support for the above explanation comes from recent digs in the town of Khirbet al-Rai, believed by some to be the location from which King David first ruled. Whether or not that particular theory is correct, one of the finds reported by Keimer, Davis, Ganor and Garfinkel at this site is of definite interest to the question at hand.

These authors report in a recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Review the following: “In a large stone-lined silo [a] 3.5 inch-wide fragmented sherd [i.e. piece of pottery] bearing the inscription yrb'l ('Jerubbaal') was discovered. This name is attested in the Bible: The individual more commonly known as Gideon takes this name after destroying the altar to Baal in Ophrah (Judges 6:32). Although there is no direct connection between the biblical story and the sherd from Khirbet al-Rai, the parallel is striking, especially given that the episode from Judges is set in the period just before the rise of the monarchy (12th-11^th centuries BCE), precisely the period with which the inscribed sherd is associated.”

Thus we see how the same name Jerubbaal can mean, depending on the context, either “Baal builds /gives the increase” or “Baal attempts to do something (but is ineffective).”

Jerubbosheth

But this is not the end of the story by any means. Because of the above ambiguity regarding the name Jerubbaal (whether it was his original name or a subsequent one), in later events involving that personage, he is renamed yet again.

In II Samuel 11:21 he is referred to as Jerubbosheth (with the Hebrew word bosheth meaning “shame”) in order to avoid naming the hated deity Baal. This identical name substitution appears in II Samuel 4:4, and a similar case can be seen in the Hebrew text of II Samuel 2:8 where Ishbaal becomes Ishbosheth. Interestingly though, most of the early translations of the OT revert to the original names derived from Baal instead. The cause for the Hebrew substitution in the first place is an example of a theological euphemism.

For a more thorough discussion of the subject of euphemisms, see my earlier posts titled “Euphemisms in the Bible” and “Religous Euphemisms in the Bible.”

NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS FROM THE BIBLE

 Toward the end of most of the New Testament epistles is a section in which Paul or other authors urge their audience to do some specific things to enhance their walk with God. By personalizing these admonitions, we can have a ready-made list of resolutions for the New Year. Thus, with a little paraphrasing one can come up with the following examples:

I resolve to avoid those of my acquaintances who love to cause dissensions. (Romans 16:17)

I will be wise in what is good and guileless in what is evil. (Romans 16:19)

In the coming year, I will keep alert, stand firm in my faith, and be strong and courageous. (I Corinthians 16:13)

All that I do will be done in love. (I Corinthians 16:14)

I will put myself at the service of those people who serve others unselfishly. (I Corinthians 16:15-16)

I resolve to examine myself to see whether I am truly living in the faith. (II Corinthians 13:5)

I will agree with my fellow Christians and live in peace with them. (II Corinthians 13:11)

I will attempt to restore to fellowship those in the faith who have backslid, but to do so only in a spirit of gentleness. (Galatians 6:1)

I resolve to help bear the burdens of others who are in need. (Galatians 6:2)

I will pray faithfully for all believers, especially pastors and missionaries. (Ephesians 6:18-20)

I resolve to keep my mind focused only on those things which are pure and worthy. (Philippians 4:8)

I will devote myself to prayer, including thanksgiving for my blessings and supplications for those who have devoted their lives to spreading God's word to others. (Colossians 4:2-4)

I resolve to conduct myself wisely toward non-believers and be prepared to respond to their spiritual questions. (Colossians 4:5-6)

I will continue growing in my faith and conduct and not merely remain content with my present state of spiritual maturity. (I Thessalonians 4:1)

I will set a good example in the eyes of unbelievers in terms of maintaining a good work ethic and not making it a habit of going around criticizing others. (I Thessalonians 4:11-12)

In the coming year, I will ask God to direct my mind and heart more and more to His love toward me as shown by the giving of His Son for my behalf and the behalf of others. (II Thessalonians 3:5)

I think you get the idea from these examples, but you might personally try the same exercise on all the New Testament letters to see how many more potential resolutions you can find, and more importantly, keep.