EXODUS 33:12-23

                                           Figure 1: Key Phrases in Exodus 33:12-23

A. Moses said to the LORD (12a)

        B. bring up this people (12b)

                C. you have not let me know (12c)

                        D. whom you will send with me (12d)

                C'. I know you by name (12e)

                                E. You / if I have found favor in my sight (12d-13a)

                                        F. show me (13b)

                                                G.your ways (13c)

        B'. This nation is your people (13c)

                        D'. My presence will go with you; if your presence will not go (14-15)

                                E'. I have found favor in your sight (16a)

        B''. I and your people-4x (16b-d)

A'. The LORD said to Moses (17a)

                                E''. You have found favor in my sight (17a)

                C''. I know you by name (17b)

                                        F'. show me (18a)

                                                G'. your glory (18b)

                        D'. I will make all my goodness pass before you(19a)

                C''''. proclaim before you my name (19b)

                                        F''. You cannot see my face (20)

                                                G''. my glory (22a)

                        D'. passes by, I have passed by (22a-b)

                                        F'''. My face shall not be seen (23)

As you can see from Figure 1, this section can be roughly broken into two parts: first Moses speaks to God and then God replies. Most of the same phrases appear in both halves. As Childs says, “Traditionally v. 17 has been regarded as belonging to the passage which follows. However, in terms of both form and content v. 17 provides the natural conclusion to the dialogue without which the whole passage is left hanging (so also the NAB). Personally, I think that point is debatable and prefer to look at v. 17 as serving both functions.

33:12-16 As Knight says: “The verb 'to know' occurs six times in this passage. So 'seeing God face to face' evidently means coming to know him intuitively and thus to know his will. Moses, however, cannot attain to this yet even though God knows his 'name', that is, knows Moses through and through, and has elected him to service, and even though Moses has found grace in God's eyes, v. 12. For to be elect does not mean to have full knowledge. Moses longs to know just what his real task is.”

33:12 “Moses' reply to Yahweh is a response not to 32:34.., but to Yahweh's speech of command in 33:1-3. Yahweh had ordered Moses to 'ascend from this place,' along with the people (33:1). Moses now repeats that order, quoting Yahweh's verb 'ascend.' He then proceeds to raise with Yahweh the question 'How?' Yahweh has not revealed to Moses what only he...can reveal: who is to go with Moses to make possible the departure of such a people as Israel under the promise of Yahweh's absence from such a place as Sinai, the one place where Yahweh's Presence has been most real...As Terrien... correctly points out, Moses really wants (and needs) to know something about Yahweh himself, and Moses presses his question on the strength of the favor he has won with Yahweh.” (Durham)

33:13 A footnote in the Jerusalem Bible explains that the phrase “show me your ways” means “of what nature you are.” As an alternative understanding, B.W. Anderson feels it means a “form of historical action.” And Sanderson similarly defines it as God's “manner of action in the world.”

33:14 The 'rest' promised by God in this verse refers to “the undisturbed occupation of Canaan.” (JB) And concerning God's statement that His presence would go with the people, Anderson interprets it as a reference to the Ark of the Covenant leading the procession through the wilderness.

“Because God accompanies Israel on its journey (Ex. 33:14), there is a noted lack of attachment to permanent religious sites or structures [in the wilderness].” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

33:15-16 God's response had continued to attach itself to Moses himself. Moses shakes it off and demands that the response include the people. The issue is whether God will again accompany his people in such a way as to make them again distinct from all other peoples. This was the essence of the original covenant promise.” (Childs)

33:16 Ramm says that this verse “expands our vision so that now the whole earth is within our perspective. Yahweh is not only the God of this little nation out on this little part of the earth, but the God of all nations!”

33:17 “Thus comes Yahweh's answer a second time, so anxiously anticipated, so carefully prepared for. The answer remains direct and simple, an eloquent affirmation of the clear either/or Moses has posed....This brilliant narrative presents Yahweh 'seeing the point',' and affirming without argument and without repetition (in itself a remarkable rhetorical surprise) that Moses is right, that he must not withdraw his Presence from Israel...It is a brilliantly arresting conclusion to a magnificent narrative sequence, dazzlingly effective in its brevity, masterfully bold in its presentation of a Yahweh who is so secure that he does not mind being upstaged by his own servant Moses.” (Durham)

33:18-23 Cole says regarding the second half of this passage, “God has just granted the petition for His continued presence with Israel. Now Moses' prayer is to see the kabod, the manifested glory (literally 'weight') of YHWH. This is a prayer to see God as He is: but, in these terms, it is impossible. Mortal man cannot endure to see God (verse 20). In vivid pictorial language, the passage says that man may see only where God has passed by (verses 22,23) and so know Him by His past doings and acts. For a full revelation of what God is like, man must wait until Jesus Christ (Jn. 14:9). There is no contradiction between this and Exodus 24:10, where the elders 'saw the God of Israel' (cf. Gn. 32:30). All they saw was the 'pavement of sapphire' that was 'under his feet': all that Isaiah saw was the skirt of the royal garments that filled the vast Temple courtyard (Is. 6:1).”

Thus, as Sanderson says, “This paragraph anticipates the theophany of 34:5-7, the fifth divine appearance of the book.”

33:18 Childs: “'glory of God' is a technical expression...and denotes that side of the divine nature which can be perceived by man through revelation.”

33:19 God granted this request to see His glory, but on certain terms. Moses was not to think that he had cornered God. God responded in his pure sovereign grace.” (Ramm)

33:21-23 Schnittjer: “The story of Elijah and the theophany on Mount Horeb features echoes of relation to Moses on the same mountain...The striking retrospective figural parallels establish a kind of continuity of divine presence.” He especially notes the close parallels between Exodus 33:21-22 and I Kings 19:11-13. Then concerning NT parallels to these verses in Exodus 33, he points to Mark 9:2-7 and Romans 11:2-3. In addition, he notes the similarities between Exodus 33:21-23 with Mark 9:2-3 and its Gospel parallels.

33:22 “The reference in [John 1:14] to Jesus taking up residence among God's people resulting in the revelation of God's glory...harks back to OT references to the manifestation of the presence and glory (kabod) of God, be it in the theopanies, the tabernacle, or the temple (c.f., e.g. Exod. 33:22...).” (Kostenberger)

33:23 The statement here that no one can see God's face and live appears to be a contradiction to v. 11 where it states that Moses spoke to God “face to face.”

Kaiser goes into considerably more detail regarding this vexing question: “'Now show me your glory,' was more than the Lord would grant for Moses' own good. Even so, God allowed his 'goodness' to pass in front of Moses and proclaimed his 'name' in Moses' presence. Thus, instead of showing Moses his person or describing his appearance, the Lord gave Moses a description of who he is. The 'name' of God included his nature, character (Ps 20:1; Lk 24:47; Jn 1:12), doctrine (Ps 22; Jn 17:6, 26) and standards for living righteously (Mic 4:5). Romans 9:15 quotes Exodus 33:19 and applies it to God's sovereignty.” Kaiser similarly explains away other references in the Bible in which someone apparently “sees” God. These passages include: Genesis 32:30; Exodus 24:9-11; and Daniel 7:9.

As to the references to God's hand and backside in this passage, Kaiser explains them as obvious figures of speech since (a) it makes no sense to have God put His literal hand over Moses' eyes and keep it there after God had completely left the scene and (b) “back” similarly makes no sense since, as Isaiah 31:3 and John 4:24 explain, God is spirit not flesh. Kaiser therefore interprets that to mean 'aftereffect.' “Moses did not see the glory of God directly, but once it had gone past, God did allow him to view the results, the afterglow, that his presence had produced.”

And on that same subject, an anonymous article in DBI reads: “God's 'backside' is here a veiling image, distancing the full glory of God from human view, but paradoxically revealing a very full sense of God's glory even as it is partly concealed.”

I CORINTHIANS 12 -- THE HOLY SPIRIT

 

I Corinthians 12 – The Holy Spirit

For those interested in the subject of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, I would highly recommend Frederick Dale Bruner's A Theology of the Holy Spirit. The first half of his book is devoted to a detailed historical review and critique of Pentecostalism, while the second half is a commentary on every NT text which contains mention of this Third Person of the Trinity. Below is a summary of his verse-by-verse remarks on I Corinthians 12. And lest you might think that I am therefore prejudiced against Pentecostals, I have in each case supplemented, and in some cases contrasted, Bruner (coming from a Presbyterian background) with the views of the quite prominent Pentecostal scholar Gordon Fee, with comments taken from his book Paul, the Spirit and the People of God and his Eerdmans commentary The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

12:1 “The Corinthians had probably asked Paul's opinion (or defense) in a matter which was beginning to concern them. What, or who, is truly spiritual?...And in particular, how is Christian spirituality to be expressed in the congregational meeting?” (Bruner)

“In...14:37...Paul says rhetorically, 'If anyone thinks he/she is 'spiritual.' It would also fit well with the problem in Corinth...where the conflict with Paul is not simply over spiritual gifts as such but over the significance of the gift of tongues for 'spiritual life'...both here and in 14:1 the better translation might be 'the things of the Spirit,' which would refer primarily to spiritual manifestations, from the perspective of the Spirit's endowment; at the same time it would point toward those who are so endowed.” (Fee)

12:2 “Paul begins thematically by reminding the Corinthians negatively of what 'spiritual things' (ta pneumatika) are not. The very characteristic of the Corinthians' heathen past, he argues, was the sense of being overpowered and carried away by spiritual forces.” (Bruner)

“In keeping with his Jewish heritage, Paul scorns the idols as mute because they cannot hear and answer prayer, nor can they speak – in contrast to the Spirit of God who can. But he has also argued earlier that the mute idols represent demons (10:20-21) – who can and do speak through their devotees. Most likely, therefore, he is reminding them of what they well know, that in some of the cults 'inspired utterances' were part of the worship, despite the 'mute idols.' If so, then his concern is to establish early on, as v. 3 seems to corroborate, that it is not 'inspired speech' as such that is evidence of the Spirit. They had already known that phenomenon as pagans. Rather, what counts is the intelligible and Christian content of such utterances.” (Fee)

12:3 “Positively, Paul sees the characteristic, perhaps the classic work of the Holy Spirit in the intelligible and simple confession that Jesus is Lord. The man who confesses 'Lord Jesus' has experienced the deep work of the Spirit.The Spirit does not exhibit himself supremely in sublimating the ego, in emptying it, removing it, overpowering it, or in ecstasy extinguishing or thrilling it, but in intelligently, intelligibly, christocentrically using it.” (Bruner)

“Thus it is fair to say with some that Paul's doctrine of the Spirit is Christ-centered, in the sense that Christ and his work help to define the Spirit and his work in the Christian life.” (Fee)

12:4-7 “If the central work of the Spirit is the honoring of Jesus in speech, this work is not in any sense monotonous or uni-form. The Spirit is rich in the variety of his manifestations – hence the three-fold use of the word 'varieties' and its emphasis by being placed at the beginning of each phrase in the sentence...The Corinthians needed to learn that the Spirit not only could and classically did reveal himself in talking rationally and reverently of Jesus, but that he had more ways of honoring Jesus than had occurred to them.” (Bruner)

The Corinthians' extraordinary and imbalanced emphasis on tongues as the evidence of a fully developed spirituality requires theological correction...Thus every paragraph in chapter 12 except for vv. 21-26 has this theme – the need for diversity in order for the community to be built up...The Spirit who is responsible for their being is also the basis for the many parts necessary for the body to function at all.” (Fee)

12:8-11 “Paul now provides a list of some of the various gifts he has in mind. Prominent at the head are gifts of intelligent and thoughtful utterance. Prominent at the end are gifts of ecstatic utterance and their interpretation...Paul looks at gifts from the paramount perspective of the congregation and from this view he does not value any gift simply in its existence but only in its understandable communication to others for their upbuilding. Indeed, it is questionable if, in Paul's thought, a gift can said to 'exist' for the individual if it is not employed for the church. The gift of the 'utterance of wisdom,' according to Paul becomes the gift of wisdom written it is in the act of utterance. The gift of tongues, similarly, becomes a gift in fact only when it is interpreted for the help of the congregation. In Paul's understanding, it appears, you cannot take a gift home with you.” (Bruner)

“It should be noted at this point that only tongues is included in every list of 'gifts' in these three chapters [see 12:8-10, 28, 29-30; 13:1-3, 8; 14:6, 26]. Its place at the conclusion of each list in chap. 12, but at the beginning in 13:1 and 14:6, suggests that the problem lies here. It is listed last not because it is 'least,' but because it is the problem. He always includes it, but at the end, after the greater concern for diversity has been heard.” (Fee)

“But the greatest problem for me is the nearly universal tendency to divorce the list of 'Spirit-manifestations' (Paul's own term in context) from its clear setting in Christian worship...The manifestations...in context means 'different ways the Spirit shows himself when the community is gathered together. Paul's point here is the community's need for diversity.” (Fee)

12:12-13 “There is no necessary contradiction between many gifts and a single Christ, but in fact a fine congruence as the natural analogy of the body serves to illustrate (vv. 14-26)...The historical event is baptism...Spiritual baptism is not a rite which only the ecstatically able can attain. Baptism, like the salvation it applies, has absolutely nothing to do with merit or evidence of ability...If this verse [v. 13] is interpreted as speaking of a second, subsequent, and separate baptism in the Holy Spirit, beyond baptism in Christ, for only some Christians, then violence is done not only to the words of the text...but to the purpose of the text in its Corinthian context. The burden of Paul's Corinthian message is the oneness of all the baptized in Christ Jesus.” (Bruner)

“Some – on all sides, interestingly enough – have argued that the second clause points to a second (definite, recognizable) experience in the Spirit. But against such a view is the parallelism just noted [between 'We were all baptized in the one Spirit' and 'We all were caused to drink one Spirit' ] , plus the lack of such language elsewhere in the whole of Christian literature to an experience of the Spirit.” (Fee)

12:14-27 “With the church's unity as signified by baptism classically sealed in the preceding sentences, Paul can now give his attention to the other side of the truth of organic unity – variety...In any living body there are 'higher' and 'lower' parts, or better, more or less prominent organs; but these differences in a single body, particularly in Christ's single body, are purely functional, they are not qualitative or 'spiritual.' Paul in this passage aptly contrasts the sense of spiritual inferiority which lower and seemingly less important parts of the body could feel toward higher and the superiority which higher and seemingly more impressive or spectacular parts could feel toward lower parts (vv. 14-17). But no part should feel either inferior or superior, for God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose' (v. 18).” (Bruner)

“From here Paul proceeds to develop the imagery of the 'body' (referring always to the church) in two slightly different directions (vv. 15-20, 21-26), which will apply both parts of the figure (one body, many members) to their situation; but the primary concern, as this verse [v. 14] indicates, is with the 'many parts.'...The language of v. 18 in particular indicates that the 'application' to their situation harks back to vv. 7-11 and the insistence on diversity with regard to gifts and manifestations of the Spirit, not to kinds of persons within the Corinthian community. In the second instance, however, the apostle picks up and drives home a point not made previously in this argument, but somewhat intrinsic to the metaphor...Paul begins this argument (v. 21) with three of the members from vv. 15-16, but now with clear implications of alleged superiority.” (Fee)

12:28-31 “Paul concludes this particular part of his argument by offering a second list, this time of persons rather than of gifts (v. 28; cf. Eph. 4:11). As if to stress the fact that in his prior list no rigid, invariable inventory of 'nine' gifts was proffered, Paul now lists several types not readily recognizable in the earlier grouping, notably apostles, helpers, and administrators. Unique to this list also is the stressed numerical order: 'first..., second..., third,' followed simply by 'then.., then.' Similar, however, in both lists in Corinthians are the entries at the very bottom – speaking (and interpreting) 'various kinds of tongues'...Paul then discreetly places a period to this particular discussion by suggesting that the Corinthians 'earnestly desire the higher gifts'' (v. 31).” (Bruner)

“With this sentence [beginning in v. 28] Paul proceeds to give substance to the preceding application, that individually they are part of the one body of Christ...he illustrates that diversity by several remarkable features: (1) He begins with a list of persons (apostles, prophets, teachers), whom he ranks in the order of first, second, third. (2) With the fourth and fifth items...he reverts to charismata, taking two from the list in vv. 8-10. These are both prefaced by the word 'then,' as though he intended the ranking scheme to continue. (3) The sixth and seventh items.., which are deeds of service, are noteworthy in three ways: (a) they are the only two not mentioned again in the rhetoric of vv. 29-30; (b) they are not mentioned again in the NT; (c) they do not appear to be of the same kind, that is, supernatural endowments, as those on either side (miracles, healings, tongues)...That leads to the further question. Does Paul intend that all of these be 'ranked' as to their role or significance in the church? To which the answer seems to be No...The gift of tongues, as noted earlier, is not listed last because it is least but because it is the problem. As before, Paul includes it because it is a part of the necessary diversity; but he includes it at the end so that the emphasis on diversity will be heard first.” (Fee)

Conclusion

I wanted to compare the thoughts of these two particular scholars to demonstrate one main point. In the churches I grew up in there was a deep suspicion against the writings and speeches by anyone who did not subscribe to all the tenets of our particular denomination. There was this profound fear that we would be horribly led astray by heretical teachings, even on occasion by pastors graduating from seminaries affiliated with our own particular movement.

As I began to read more widely in Christian literature (whether it came from Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Methodist, etc. sources), It became obvious that, with a notable few exceptions, the similarities in their approaches to Scripture and their conclusions were much more obvious than their differences. That was especially true of the teachings of those scholars who placed a higher premium on intellectual honesty than on what their particular denomination or church tradition might happen to say.

Thus, as you have no doubt discerned after reading the comments of Fee and Bruner above, one would be quite hard pressed to pick which of the two scholars was a practicing Pentecostal and which one was deeply suspicious of the teachings and practices of that same denomination. That is because both of them are careful scholars who honestly attempt to glean the intended meaning out of Scripture, not necessarily the one to which their respective denominations subscribe.

My only caveat is in regard to the teachings of those who belong to such strict sects and denominations that they are forced to follow the official doctrine in lock-step or face immediate dismissal from their positions. I myself have been the target of such a witch trial more than once for daring to attempt sticking to the most obvious meaning of a Bible passage even if it did not happen to agree with the official tenets or unofficial traditions of that particular congregation.

I KINGS 7:13-14

The historical books of the Old Testament are sometimes not the easiest to read. For one thing, it is hard to keep track of all the characters in the narrative since some pop up after disappearing for a number of chapters, or are perhaps different people altogether with the same name. In addition, we have to account for the apparent discrepancies we sometimes run across in comparing passages in Samuel-Kings with their parallel narratives in I-II Chronicles. As one example containing both these complicating factors, I will cite the case of Hiram (or Huram), who seems to appear in both I Kings 5 and 7 and II Chronicles 2, all in the context of Solomon's construction of the Temple.

The first time we encounter Hiram is in I Kings 5 where he is described as the king of Tyre, a good friend of the now departed King David. He similarly befriends Solomon and offers to help him with supplies and workmen so that the Temple to the Lord can be constructed. Once the work had progressed and it was time to furnish the inside of the Temple, we learn in I Kings 7 that Solomon fetches another man named Hiram, also from Tyre, who was skilled in metalwork. These two mentions of a “Hiram” thus serve the literary purpose of bookends defining the boundaries of the whole Temple construction narrative.

Moving to the story as told in II Chronicles 2, however, we are told that it was actually King Hiram who took the initiative in sending Solomon a cunning workman named Hiram who was experienced in fashioning fine interior furnishings. Here is what various Bible scholars have to say about these somewhat contrary accounts.

Provan: “The Hiram [of I Kings 7] (called Huram-abi in 2 Chr 2.13) now introduced as the creator of the Temple furnishings fashioned from bronze is not to be confused with the king of ch. 5. The detail about his mother has probably been provided to reassure us that he was not simply a Gentile with no Israelite roots. (cf. Ezra 4.1-3 for similar sensitivity to the question of involvement in Temple building).”

However, Wiseman appears to treat both men in I Kings as if they were the same person.

“Hiram, king of Tyre, called Solomon his brother (1 Kgs 9:13). Brother may, in such an instance, be a covenant term (note that Hiram 'was on friendly terms with ['loved,' NIV] David,' (1 Kgs 5:15).” (Hamilton)

Merrill states in regard to 2 Chron. 2:13-16: “The man whom [King] Hiram chose to send to Solomon was Huram-Abi, a half-Israelite whose mother was from the tribe of Dan.”

Howard says, “He [King Hiram] agrees to provide the necessary help by sending Huran-Abi (13), the son of a Tyrian father and a Danite mother (in Kings a Naphtali widow)...The name Huranabi presents some problems. The Kings parallels (I Kg. 9:13, etc.) have Huran (NIV mg Hiram) and the text here may be translated 'Hiram my father', but king Hiram's father was Abihad and would any way be an old man by this time and hardly be the sort of person to be sent as a skilled craftsman. Rudolph points out that 'ab may also mean 'master' (Gen. 45:8; Jg. 17:10, etc.) and if this view is correct the meaning is probably 'Hiram my master (craftsman)'.” Much of this comment echoes Myers' earlier assessment of the situation.

Ellison: “There are no grounds on which we can choose between Huram and Hiram [in 2 Chron 2:13]; the name of the king is no guide. Some claim his name was Huram-abi, which is possible, but more likely it should be: 'Huran, my (his) trusted counselor.'”

“In the substance of his letter [in II Chronicles 2:13-14], Hiram deals in turn with each of the matters raised by Solomon. To the request for a skilled man (v. 7), he saends Huramabi. These verses are clearly based on I Kg. 7:13-14, here brought forward to the very start of the building operation, with Huramabi being sent by Ahiram, not merely 'brought' by Solomon. The extension of the list of his skills has already be noted as one probable outcome of the Chronicler's desire to compare him with Bezalel in Exod. 31 and 5. To this may now be added the ascription of his mother to the daughters of Dan rather than Naphtali: Bezalel was helped in his work by one Oholiab who belongd to the tribe of Dan (Exod. 31:6; 35:34), so that in a way both buiders of the tabernacle are brought together in type in Huramabi, the aditional 'ab element being a reflection of the final syllable of Oholiab.” (Williamson)

Such an ingenious analysis may be disturbing to some, even though it actually does an excellent job of explaining several seeming discrepancies in the parallel accounts. However, it should be noted that even the historical books of the Old Testament contain a great deal of theological undertones in their narratives and are much more than just a dry recitation of factual information.

JESUS, THE SON OF MARY (MARK 6:3)

Jesus the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)

Helen Bond, writing in the Summer 2026 issue of BAR magazine, discusses the unusual designation by the townspeople of Jesus as 'the son of Mary' after he had preached a sermon in the Nazareth synagogue. The question is: “What was the exact implication behind that statement?” In the first place it was certainly in contradiction to the usual pattern, which is reflected in both Luke (v. 4:22) and John (v. 6:42).

Joel Marcus reviews the first three theories summarized below, only to point out possible objections to each of them:

Possibility #1: “Ilan has shown that a matronym could be used when the mother's pedigree was superior to the father's, but that can scarely be the case here, since Davidic descent was the most important of all, and Jesus was a Davidide on his fathers side.., a fact of which Mark himself seems to be aware (see 10:48; 11:10...)”

Possibility #2: “Bauckham thinks that 'son of Mary' distinguishes Jesus from his 'brothers,' who in Bauckham's view are sons of Joseph by a previous wife, but in that case the brothers' mother would need to be specified too; lacking such an identification, the natural assumption is that the men listed after Jesus have the same mother as he does.”

Possibility #3: “Freedman suggests that perhaps they did all have the same mother, Mary, but that Joseph had a previous or subsequent marriage and that Jesus and his brothers (and sisters) therefore needed to be distinguished from the children of Joseph's other wife or wives. But in that case Mary should be mentioned alongside of Joseph, not instead of him.”

Possibility #4: But that is not the end of the theories since it has been seriously proposed that the townspeople in calling Jesus “the son of Mary” are actually labeling him as being illegitimate. The noted Bible scholar Raymond Brown discusses the pros and cons of this theory in detail, beginning with later Jewish writings. For example, the Christian writer Tertullian (ca. AD 197) noted that in north Africa Jewish opponents had labeled Jesus as the son of a prostitute. Similarly, the Roman critic Celsius in approximately AD 177-180 quoted Jewish sources as saying that Mary was driven out by her husband Joseph for having had sex with a Roman soldier.

Much more germane, however, is the evidence provided by the New Testament itself. And here we run into a mare's nest in which much or little depends on which ancient manuscript is felt to best represent the original writing, and what are the implications of considering the variations in wording found in the other Gospel accounts. Basically it all boils down to the fact that while most early manuscripts of Mark 6:3 have the townspeople calling Jesus “the carpenter, the son of Mary,” there is one even earlier source which reads that he is “the son of the carpenter and of Mary.” Then there are the variations in wording found in the other Gospel accounts which must be dealt with:

    Matthew 13:55 – “Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary...?”

    Luke 4:22 – “ Is not this the son of Joseph?”

    John 6:42 – “Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother?”

Brown next considers the evidence of John 8:41 in which Jesus states that the “sons of Abraham” are in reality “sons of Satan.” The Jews reply, “We were not born illegitimate. We have but one father, God Himself.” The question remains as to whether the word “we” should be stressed in these two sentences, in which case the Jews are in fact strongly hinting that Jesus is illegitimate, unlike themselves.

The same ambiguity exists in regard to the implications of Mark 6:3. After careful consideration of all these issues, Brown concludes that “as a result of studying both the later and earlier evidence, I would have to judge that we simply do not know whether the Jewish charge of illegitimacy, which appears clearly in the second century, had a source independent of the infancy narrative tradition – a source that would help to confirm as historical the chronology of an early birth supposed by Matthew and (implicitly) by Luke.”

Reeder puts this verse into perspective when he states: “Nothing less than the public face of the household is at stake in Matthew 1:18-19; Mark 6:3-4; Luke 15:11-32.”

“The...phrase 'the son of Mary' is probably disparaging. It was contrary to Jewish usage to describe a man as the son of his mother, even when she was a widow, except in insulting terms. Rumors to the effect that Jesus was illegitimate appear to have circulated in his own lifetime and may lie behind the reference as well. The rhetorical question of the people indicates that they know Jesus only in a superficial way. They find no reason to believe that he possesses the anointment of God.” (Lane)

Mann concurs with the above analysis as he writes that “to describe a man as the 'son of' his mother,' even when the father was deceased, is often a usage of insult. We would be unjustified in seeing the Markan phrase any implication of knowledge of the tradition of virgin birth. The textual evidence is not illuminating, for while all the uncial texts, and many minuscules, have the text we have translated here, many important texts support a version not unlike that of Matthew.”

Anderson states that “it is by no means certain that the original reading in Mark is that of RSV, the carpenter, son of Mary. If it is, it is most unusual. Among the Jews a man is called after his father. Must we suppose then that Joseph was dead by this time (but see Luke 4:22)? Or is a slur intended by naming Jesus after his mother, in order to render his paternity suspect? Or again is Mark's omission of the father meant to suggest that only God is the Father of Jesus?” These are questions which he leaves unanswered.

Grassmick: “The phrase Mary's Son was...derogatory since a man was not described as his mother's son in Jewish usage even if she was a widow, except by insult (cf. Jud. 11:1-2; Josh 8:41; 9:29). Their words, calculated insults, also suggested they knew there was something unusual about Jesus' birth.”

But Rengstorf expresses the contrary opinion that it was common at that time to refer to a person by their mother's name after the father had died.

As Perrin summarizes the situation, “Scholars disagree whether the reference to Jesus as the son of Mary in Mark 6:3 is derogatory. Most note that this reference implies Jesus' illegitimacy. In any case, the climactic saying of Jesus in Mark 6:4...does not reflect positively on the mother (or brothers) of Jesus.”

Finally, getting back to the article by Helen Bond which started this post, here is her conclusion regarding the parentage of Jesus, as understood by the people in Nazareth at that time. “It is often suggested that describing Jesus in this way was a deliberate slur, implying that his father was unknown or that there was something irregular about his birth. But insulting Jesus is not the issue: the villagers' point is that they know everything about him, not that they despise him...The best explanation, in my view, is that Jesus was locally called the 'son of Mary' because Joseph was known to have had more than one wife. The point the villagers are making, once again, is that they know everything about Jesus down to the precise identity of his mother. On the rare occasion when women appear in genealogies in the Hebrew Bible, it typically is to distinguish a man's sons by one wife rather than another [citing Genesis 4:19-22; 1 Kings 1:5; 2:13]. Presumably, Jesus was normally known as the 'son of Joseph' but in Nazareth, where Joseph was known to have had two (or more) wives, he was sometimes further distinguished as the 'son of Mary.'”

Adding to this supposition, according to Bond, is the fact that the Gospel accounts suggest Joseph's family consisted of at least seven children. “If these were full siblings, then Joseph's family was extremely large given the high infant mortality rates at the time, when a third of children died in their first year, and up to half before their fifth birthday. This would require Mary to have had at least 14 pregnancies, and quite possibly more...This is not completely impossible, but it does seem extremely high in an ancient context where poor healthcare and sanitation, not to mention frequent complications during pregnancy and birth, would all have taken their toll.”

 

WHY DID PAUL GO TO THE PISIDIAN ANTIOCH? (ACTS 13)

Why did Paul go to Pisidian Antioch? (Acts 13)

Ben Witherington asks that question in the Summer 2026 issue of BAR magazine. For some background here, this event happened as part of Paul's first missionary journey. He and his companions started out from the Syrian Antioch and proceeded in order to Cyprus. At that point Paul converts the governor of the island, who was named Sergius Paulus. At that point, Paul travels to Paphos, from where he sailed to Perga and then on land traveled to Pisidian Antioch. It helps at this point to look at a map of his travels, such as those usually included in most study Bibles.

There are two troubling issues (which may or may not be related) worth discussing regarding this trip.

First is the unusual fact that Saul's name suddenly changes to Paul during the course of the the narrative. Second is the problematic last leg of that journey that would have led Paul 's party over a difficult overland route through mountains for at least 160 miles. And to make it even more remarkable, that final stop was only a small Roman town.

Reason for Paul's Trip

Previous scholars have explained the necessity of this journey as quoted below:

“Ramsay infers from Gal. 4:13 that Paul caught malaria in the low-lying territory around Perga, and went to recuperate in the higher altitudes of southern Galatia...this, however, is highly speculative.” (Bruce)

Goodwin, on the other hand, states “The best critics now interpret St. Paul's infirmity [i.e. his thorn in the flesh] as some form of physical disease, either ophthalmia or epilepsy.” If either of these two explanations is correct, then that destroys the malaria theory for the inland trip completely.

Neil mentions several possibilities: “To reach it (i.e. Pisidian Antioch) from Perga, the two missionaries had to cross the Taurus mountains, and it has been suggested that this difficult and in places dangerous journey was undertaken because the swamps of Perga had brought on one of Paul's recurring attacks of malaria – if indeed this is what the 'thorn in the flesh' was (2 C. 12:7); in writing later to the churches he founded in Galatia on this first missionary journey, he speaks of his original mission there as being the result of illness (Gal. 4:13). The highland air of Antioch, 3,600 feet above sea level, may have assisted his recovery. It has been objected, however, that since a sick man would be unlikely to face the rigors of a mountain pass, no doubt 'in danger from rivers, danger from robbers' (2 C. 11:26), Paul's real intention was perhaps to reach the great road to Ephesus which passed through Antioch, with Rome as his eventual goal...On the other hand, his encounter with Sergius Paulus [on Cyprus] may have fired him with the desire to evangelize a Roman colony; he seems to have devoted much of his attention to this particular field of activity: as Antioch, Lystra, Philippi and Corinth were all Roman colonies...”

John Stott quotes Ramsay favorably at this point and adds: “Perhaps it was this hurry [to escape to a higher altitude] which explains why the missionaries did not stay to evangelize Perga, which they did on their return journey.” And another popular author, Lloyd John Ogilvie, in his Drumbeat of Love also accepts the malaria theory.

Saul's Name Change to Paul

Then, concerning the fact that Saul is first called Paul during his stay in Cyprus, the following scholars weigh in:

Bruce explains: “The apostle, as a Roman citizen, must have had three names – praenomen, nomen gentile and cognomen – of which Paullus was his cognomen. It is probably a mere coincidence that Luke should first designate him by his Roman cognomen in a context where another bearer of the same cognomen appears.”

Witherington agrees: “Acts 22:28 says the apostle was born a Roman citizen. We are not dealing here, as many have suggested, with a name change related to Paul's conversion; rather, we are given the apostle's Roman name, since he was a Roman citizen from birth. Why is this important? The reason for mentioning Paul's non-Jewish name in a discussion with the governor of Cyprus is because Paul is trying to appear Roman to a fellow Roman.”

Matthews: “Saul was his Jewish name, used up to this point to stress his origin; Paul was his Roman name, the one he was generally known by, and is used from now on in Acts as missionary activity aims at both Jews and Gentiles.”

By contrast, S.E. Johnson attributes the name change to a different author taking over the narrative at this point in Acts, a supposition which has little support elsewhere.

Fitzmyer offers his opinion on the name change as follows: “Commentators, following Jerome, have tried at times to suggest that Saul adopted his name from the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, the first Gentile whom the apostle brings to the Christian faith. That, however, is fanciful. It is sheer coincidence that Saul happens to bear the same Roman name as the proconsul. 'Paul' is the only name that the apostle ever uses in his letters, and if it were not for the Lucan usage in Acts up to this point, we would never have known that Paul was also called Saul. From this point on in the Lucan story only 'Paul' will be used, save in the episodes in which Luke recounts the apostle's experience on the road to Damascus, when the risen Christ addresses him as Saoul (22:7; 26:14), as he did in 9:4, or when Ananias so speaks (9:17; 22:13). The change of name is hardly intended to be 'the water-shed.' as Synge...would have it...That is to make far too much out of this minor detail.”

Fitzmyer offers a further objection to Paul adopting the name of his convert Sergius Paulus, namely that “The connection is purely literary, not historical. It fact, it is a sheer literary coincidence and mentioned even before the conversion of the proconsul.”

Hackett mentions yet more to seal the coffin on that theory: “...it was customary among the ancients for the pupil to adopt the name of the teacher, not the teacher to adopt that of the pupil...It is more probable that Paul acquired ths name like other Jews in that age, who when they associated with foreigners had often two names...Lightfoot suggests, he may have borne the two names from early life. This explanation of the origin of the name accounts for its introduction at this stage of the history. It is here for the first time that Luke speaks directly of Paul's labors among the heathen; and it is natural that he should apply to him the name by which he was chiefly known in that sphere of his ministry,”

Recent Archaeologial Evidence

Witherington, in his article, now offers a good alternative explanation for Paul's movements during his first missionary journey based on recent evidence he and Mark Wilson uncovered at the site of ancient Pisidian Antioch. He writes that they “noticed in Yalvac (the modern name for Pisidian Antioch), in the courtyard of the small municipal museum, [an inscription] where it sat gathering mold and gradually wearing away...Its first line mentions the 'Paulii,' with the plural referring to an entire family, and the second line names L. Sergius (Lucius Sergius Paulus) – the very proconsul of Cyprus who was so impressed with Paul when they met in AD 48 or 49. Indeed, we can trace this figure's career through a number of other inscriptions detailing his posts and promotions over time. One particular inscription, discovered near Pisidian Antioch in the early 20^th century, appears to refer to a son (filius) of Sergius Paulus, and thus serves as additional corroborating evidence linking this family with the Roman town.”

Witherington then offers some intriguing indirect evidence in the form of Pliny the Elder's treatise Natural History, which mentions Sergius Paulus as one of his sources. It may be just a coincidence but that book describes the fact that there were magicians on the island of Cyprus (see Acts 13:4-12).

Witherington concludes: “It makes good sense that the governor would suggest Paul and Barnabas go to his hometown; perhaps he even wrote a letter of recommendation for them, though Acts does not say so...When one journeys the same route that Paul and Barnabas likely took over the rugged mountains, probably following the Via Sebaste, it becomes obvious that there had to have been a good reason why they undertook this arduous journey to the north...It seems clear, then, that Paul and Barnabas deliberately went to Pisidian Antioch, the home of the Paulus clan, with the blessing of Sergius Paulus. The governor may have provided a letter of introduction or commendation to the authorities there for his fellow Roman citizen. This was an opportunity they could not pass up.”

 

II KINGS 3: NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

2 Kings 3: New Archaeological Evidence

It has been said that history is written by the victor. And we have a prime example here with three surviving accounts of the same events told from three different perspectives. One such source is the biblical narrative and another is the Mesha Stele, of which I have earlier written. The gist of that post is given below:

“In 1868, an Arab sheikh showed a German missionary a 4-ft. high basalt slab. The missionary expressed interest in buying it and did a paper rubbing of the inscription. But a fight broke out between the missionary's servants and the Arabs, and so negotiations were broken off. The Arabs thought something valuable must be hidden inside, and so they heated it in a fire and poured water on it to break it in pieces. The pieces were then carried away as magic amulets to bless their grain.

“An alternative story is given in Biblical Archaeology Today, 20 (3), 2 to account for the breaking of the slab. According to this tradition, some Turks were brought into the negotiations, and the Arabs broke the stone on purpose to keep them from getting it.

“Eventually about 2/3 of the slab, called the Moabite Stone or Mesha Stela, was recovered and it now resides in the Louvre. The writing was shown to be in ancient Moabite, closely related to the Hebrew language. And Hadley explains that this stela (dated to the 9^th century BC) actually contains the first existing example of writing in the fully developed Hebrew script. With the help of the original paper rubbing of the stone, the missing portions have been reconstructed, containing the phrase “House of David.” This confirms the early use of this term for David's dynasty, formerly believed by critics to be a late addition to passages such as II Samuel 7:26 and I Kings 2:24.

“The monument turns out to have been erected by King Mesha of Moab, and it reads in part: “Omri, king of Israel, humbled Moab many days because Chemosh [god of Moab] was angry at his land. His son [Ahab] followed him, and he also said this, but I have triumphed over him and over his house.” Then there are details about how he took back the cities that Israel had occupied. Among those details is the story of Mesha fortifying several cities to the north in order to protect against any Israelite invasions. Mabie feels that this could explain why King Joram of the Northern Kingdom chose to attack Moab from the south instead of the more expected northern approach, an account found in II Kings 3:8.”

-------

But there is a a more recently discovered altar from Ataruz, uncovered from the actual site of the battle. The archaeological artifacts uncovered from this latter site are described in an article by Ji and Shade in the Summer 2026 issue of BAR magazine.

Among the finds at the Moabite temple at Ataruz was a 1-1/2 ft.tall cylindrical altar with inscriptions on it dated to the end of the ninth century B.C. just following the Moabite King Mesha's rebellion against Israel.

Israel combined with the forces of Judah and Edom to attack Moab. But from this point on, perspectives appear to diverge concerning the results of the battle, with each side claiming the victory. While the inscription on the Moabite altar appears to brag about their victory and the thousands of enemies slain, the biblical account is more balanced and describes how the combined attacking forces under Israel wreaked havoc on the Moabite territory. However, it also states that when they saw the Moabite king sacrificing his own son to the god Chemosh, the Israelites turned away in horror and disgust and broke off the attack.

So one could say in a way that each side was correct in claiming a victory of sorts after the conflict, even if the truth had to be shaded a little by each party.

GALATIANS 6:6-10

A. Those taught should share all good things with their teacher (v. 6)

        B. You reap what you sow (v. 7)

                C. If you sow to your flesh (v. 8a)

                        D. you will reap corruption (v. 8b)

                C'. If you sow to the Spirit (v. 8c)

                        D'. you will reap eternal life (v. 8d)

        B'. We will reap if we do not give up (v. 9)

A'. Let us work for the good of all (v. 10)

Galatians 6:6

Guthrie: “This statement comes rather abruptly after the opening section of this chapter and raises the problem whether any connection exists with what precedes, whether it stands as an isolated statement or whether it introduces the next section...If it arises out of verse 5 it may introduce a necessary modification to avoid any misapprehension.”

Martyn says that “the expression 'the household of faith' (Gal 6:10) can be taken to refer to the brothers and sisters in the Jerusalem church. From these comparisons it is possible to suggest that, in Gal 6:6, Paul means to exhort the Galatians to proceed with their part in his collection of funds for the Jerusalem church.” However, after consideration he rejects this possibility.

Galatians 6:7

“Paul now returns to the idea suggested by v. 22 [of chapter 5], with its metaphor of 'fruit of the Spirit'. While karpos...is more commonly used of 'fruits', it can also be used of 'grain', and the metaphor here is that of grain harvested. This again is a very old biblical simile, used frequently by the Lord both in parable and incidental allusion, though principally with reference to the evangelizing tasks of His disciple....It is worth considering whether the metaphor may not have been re-suggested to Paul's mind by the treatment of Christian giving in the verse immediately before.” (Cole)

John Stott says, “The possibility of being deceived is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Jesus said that the devil was a liar and the father of lies, and He cautioned His disciples against being led astray...Many people are deceived concerning this inexorable law of seed-time and harvest.They sow their seeds thoughtlessly, nonchalantly, and blind themselves to the fact that the seeds they sow will inevitably produce a corresponding harvest. Or they sow seed of one kind and expect to reap a harvest of another. They imagine that somehow they can get away with it. But this is impossible.”

Galatians 6:8

Regarding the idiom of sowing and reaping, Dospel notes: “When people give away their material wealth to support others, it's not a loss but an investment – as when farmers sow seeds to ensure future harvest (see also 1 Corinthians 9:11 and 2 Corinthians 9:6-11.”

He distinguishes this principle from the idea of karma or what goes around comes around in that “the apostle means the eschatological, spiritual harvest” as explained further in v. 9. Dospel adds, “The overall context of the letter reveals another dimension. After Paul's initial mission to Galatia...the local Christians (mostly Gentile converts) were facing demands that they follow Jewish law...Indeed, Paul's teaching about God's grace rejects the notion that one could force his way into the kingdom of God by the merit of his good works.....Rather, the faithful reap salvation 'through the faith in Jesus Christ' (2:16) when they 'sow to the Spirit' (6:9). According to Paul, there are no just deserts, only undeserved mercy.”

Galatians 6:9

“The occasion for the summons in verse 9 not to become weary in doing good may be the continued delay of 'the great harvest.' This delay may be the cause for a lapse in the consciousness of the importance of well-doing – a cause also for the laxity and fatigue hinted here. Well-doing is an epitome of all that is involved in walking by the Spirit, as it has been detailed in the preceding passages. Not only must the Galatians persevere in seeking to do well: they must also do it. The second clause provides the motivation: the harvest is coming, however distant and tardy it may seen. However, the readers should bear in mind that this harvest will come only in due season: at the suitable time, that is, when from God's point of view the time is ripe for it.” (Ridderbos)

Galatians 6:10

Briggs notes that “the family of faith” in this verse translates the Greek meaning “members of the household of faith” as in equivalent phrases found in Ephesians 2:19; I Timothy 3:15; and 1 Peter 4:17.

D.K. Campbell's comment on this verse is as follows: “This passage...speaks clearly about Christian social responsibility, but it should be noted that it is addressed to individual believers. The church is not an agency for social work, though individual Christians are charged to minister in this way as they are able and have opportunity (cf. Rom. 12:17-21).”

I think I know what Campbell is driving at since I am aware that some of the more liberal churches today spend much of their time and energy doing “good works” in their neighborhood. Not that there is anything wrong with that. However, years ago I participated in a small ecumenical discussion group which included one sincere young man from another denomination who listed off all the volunteer activities he had been doing to help those in need. But he admitted to us that he hadn't the slightest idea why he was doing them or what in the world it had to do with Christianity, only that his pastor told him that he must keep doing them. There was a complete disconnect in his mind between anything Jesus or the Bible might have to say on the subject (subjects he was never taught in his church) and doing good works. On the other hand, I have attended churches in which any money or work offered by the members was considered totally wasted effort if it didn't serve the immediate needs and wants of our own congregation. As often is the case in other issues, both extremes are to be avoided.

ANIMAL IMAGERY IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

As a challenge to myself, I decided to put together a post on the above subject even though I feared in advance that I might find myself with nothing to write about. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states that the “Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT uses about 180 words, the Greek NT about 50 words, to name a total of about 70 types (not species) of animals.” And Avalos adds: “Biblical authors often use animal imagery to express aspects of their culture.”

As expected, a great deal of these references appear in a literal sense in the OT sacrificial laws, as metaphors and similies in the Poetic Writings, and in the context of Jesus' teachings. But what about the letters to Timothy and Titus? Fortunately, I managed to come up with the verses below, mostly in metaphorical contexts, buried in the Pastoral Epistles as well. I say “buried” because these references seldom come out and hit you in the face the way the more obvious similies do with their use of “like” or “as.” But just as it is necessary in a simile to determine exactly which characteristic of A is being compared to B in order to understand that figure of speech, the same applies to metaphorical language. Just a word of caution here: If you are relying solely on a Bible paraphrase, there is a very good chance you will not have the slightest idea what I am talking about here. That iswhy it is often preferable to rely instead on a good fairly literal rendering of the Greek original in order to help you catch such subtlteties which may be present in the original text.

I Timothy 3:7

Vine: “Pagis, a trap, a snare (akin to pegnumi, to fix, and pagineuo, to ensnare...) is used metaphorically of (a) the allurements to evil by which the Devil ensnares one, I Tim. 3:7; 2 Tim. 2:26; (b) seductions to evil, which ensnare those who 'desire to be rich,' I Tim. 6:9...”

As Lea says, “If the overseer has an unsavory reputation with the unsaved world, he and the entire church will fall into disgrace. Paul stated that such a disgrace is a trap set by the devil. When church leaders live in such a way that unsaved outsiders refuse to listen to their message, the devil has clearly lured believers into a trap...In this verse Paul presented Satan as a hunter who lays out traps into which the careless, shortsighted Christian can fall.”

I Timothy 5:18

“This quotation from Dt. 25:4 is used by Paul in I C. 9:9 to support his argument that those who preach the gospel have a right to be supported by those whom they evangelize. It was a favorite text with the rabbis, who, like Paul, did not hesitate to use it it an allegorical sense...By the time the author of the Pastorals came to use it, it had become a stock proof-text to show that the ordained ministy is entitled to some financial reward.” (Hanson)

Lea says that Paul “quoted Deut 25:4 to justify proper treatment for the pastor. Paul reasoned that if God could show concern for the laboring ox, the congregation needed to show proper concern for its pastor. The original intention of refusing to muzzle the ox was to allow the animal an occcasional bite as it moved about the threshing floor. Paul saw expressed in this command a principle that is broader than a mere statement about care for animals.”

“It is too cruel to make an ox work with grain while withholding it (Deut 25:4), and similar courtesy applies to people (1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tim 5:18).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

I Timothy 6:1

“Servants...under the yoke...draws attention to the non-Christian approach to slaves who were regarded as little more than cattle. The expression strongly brings into focus the servile social conditions of the contemporary world.” (Guthrie)

“The...description, 'under the yoke' (cf. Gal 5:1), is traditional and stresses the harsh social and existential reality of the person who existed as the property of another (whether of an unbeliever or a believer).” (Towner)

Lea agrees the above assertions: “The phrase 'under the yoke' describes the galling, humiliating result of slavery. However, Paul was not suggesting that only those who were more oppressed than usual needed to respond to his words. The contrast in v. 2 suggests that Paul was thinking in this verse particularly of those slaves who had unbelieving masters. Paul insisted that Christian slaves have a genuine respect for their owners.”

I Timothy 6:9

Nute quotes Way as saying, “The metaphor...may be taken from the wild beast which, leaping at the bait hung over a pit, falls in, and is impaled on the stake below.”

“The weakness of the flesh is...described as desire (epithymia), which entices men into temptation (Jas. 1:14), so that the power of the evil one closes over him like a trap (pagis, 1 Tim. 6:9).” (Haarbeck)

As Towner puts it, “The desire for wealth makes one susceptible to corrupt suggestions and unscrupulous opportunities to advance. Second, the next term 'trap' (or 'snare'; see 3:7) moves the sequence from enticement to actual entrapment in a predicament.”

Lea also sees a progression here: “Paul painted three progressive pitfalls in which the willful wealth-seeker becomes entangled. First wealth tempts like a lure and causes people to covet the wrong objects. Second, individuals become entangled like animals dangling in a trap...Third, the trapped ones drown in an almost personified wealth that becomes 'a personal monster, which plunges its victim into an ocean of completee destruction [to quote Guthrie].”

II Timothy 2:26

There is possibly a subtle reference to animals here in that Paul expressed the desire that his opponents might escape the snare that Satan has set for them. This is the second time in the letter where this sort of metaphor is used (see on 3:7 above).

Lea adds, “Paul wanted the false teachers to return to sober thinking and win release from Satan's stranglehold. To think soberly in the spiritual realm demands clear, sound insight about spiritual realities. Some had muddled thinking because they had been taken captive in the snare of the devil. The verb for taking them captive (zogreo) means literally to capture alive...”

However, Towner notes that in this particular verse there is a little ambiguity as to exactly who is doing the capturing, Satan or God. He concludes that “there seems little reason to shift back at this point to the theme of God's activity.”

II Timothy 3:3

Lea says, “The two terms with which v. 3 begins describe people who are inhuman because of their lack of family love and who are 'unforgivng'...in their resistance to all overtures of reconciliation. The first term suggests that the evildoers have become almost beastlike in the breakdown of love for their kin, especially parents.”

Knight: “Anameroi, literally 'untamed,' designates those who are brutal or fierce.” He cites Epictetus 1:3.7, where those who forget their divine origin are likened to lions.”

“The...adjective, 'brutal,' typically described wild animals and people who behave like them. Titus 1:12 (cf. Jude 10) employs the same metaphor with more explicit language. There is no way to identify specifics of behavior here; the category, however, smears those so described as belonging to the category of uncivilized barbarians.” (Towner)

II Timothy 4:6

Towner asks, “But what is the event in Paul's mind, and how does he concepualize it? Both parts of the sentence allude to Paul's death. The first indication of this comes in the first half of the sentence and the passive verb 'to be poured out as a drink offering,' which refers to the libation that was poured out (often) to accopmany and complete a (grain, animal) sacrifice. As such, it does not refer to sacrificial death [such as Christ's on the cross], but the metaphor with its allusion to wine may well intend to evoke the imagery of Paul's blood (i.e., his life) being poured out. And the language clearly places Paul's upcoming death into the sacrificial context as an offering...that accomnpanies another, perhaps more fundamental offering. In the present context he possibly sees his death as complementing the ultimate bloody sacrifice of the Messiah (Col 1:24). Above all, the passive voice and the sacrificial imagery underline that this death is not a meaningless but rather a necessary event in the furtherance of the work of the gospel.”

Thus, from Towner's explanation we see that, at best, there is an indirect correlation between the predicted death of Paul and Christ's atoning death, which in itself is a type of the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Lea adds that Paul “compared the pouring out of his energy in ministry to the pouring out of the wine of an Old Testament drink offering. Such offerings (see Num 15:1-10) were probably a substitute for the blood used in heathen sacrifices (Ps 16:4).” This confirms Towner's very indirect correlation of Paul's sacrifice with animal sacrifices.

Titus 1:12

Knight explains that “therion means 'animal,' often 'wild animal' or 'beast' and is used figuratively, as here, of persons with a 'bestial' nature.”

Quinn asks, “Where didt the author of Titus find this testimony? He submits it as an emanation from a native Cretan with indisputable prophetic credentials. As early as Clement of Alexandria...this hexameter was attributed to Epimenides of Crete, who lived about the sixth century B.C.E....In the case of the devastating caricature in Titus 1:12, no small part of its effectiveness derives from the known nationality of the author. 'This is how Cretans appear to the wise man who was their countryman' is certainly what the author of Titus wished to say...”Crete was proverbial among the ancients for having no dangerous wild animals...The poet asserts that the human beings here give the lie to that belief. They are beasts of prey, not working for their food but idly prowling about for something to satisfy their hunger...”

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TRIBE OF DAN? -- REVELATION 7:5-8

 

What happened to the Tribe of Dan? – Revelation 7:5-8

One peculiar feature of the listing of the twelve tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 is the fact that the tribe of Dan is missing. As Leon Morris says, “It is not really necessary to list the tribes. But doing this puts some stress on the inclusion of all God's people. “There are 12,000 from each tribe except Dan, which is omitted. The twelve are then made up by including Manasseh as well as Joseph. This is rather curious, for Manasseh is included in Joseph. If there are two Joseph tribes we expect Ephraim and Manasseh. Some scholars see a copyist's error, 'Dan' being read as 'Man' and subsequently taken as an abbreviation for 'Manasseh.' This seems unlikely and it is more probable that Dan was omitted because of its association with idolatry, or because the antichrist was supposed to come from this tribe.” Other commentators flesh out these comments laid out by Morris, and are categorized below on the basis of their arguments.

Textual Confusion

Mounce states: Some have suggested that Dan was inadvertently copied as Man, which was later taken as an abbreviation for Manasseh. This would solve both problems [i.e.the inclusion of both Manasseh and Joseph, since Manasseh...is included in Joseph [and] the omission of Dan. Unfortunately it is only conjecture unsupported by any solid evidence [other than two minor manuscripts].”

It is telling that neither Comfort's nor Metzger's standard commentaries on New Testament textual criticism even mention this possibility.

Bruce is similarly skeptical concerning this hypothetical scenario: “It is strange to find Manasseh listed separately, since the tribe of Joseph (embracing Ephraim and Manasseh) is listed in verse 7. On the other hand, the tribe of Dan is omitted. It may be thought that Dan originally stood where Manasseh now stands, but such a conjecture is unsupported by any evidence.”

Small Size

One problem is in trying to pin down the exact location occupied by the tribe of Dan since it was by far the smallest of the twelve tribes, as a glance at a map found in most study Bibles or in a Bible atlas will show.

Knoppers reviews the biblical evidence: “The tribe of Dan's first settlement is depicted as lying between the territories of Ephraim to the north, Benjamin to the east, and Judah to the south (Josh. 19:40-48)...Already at an early time, a majority of the tribe migrated northward to a site near the source of the Jordan river (Josh. 19.47-48; Judg. 1.34). Hence, Dan often marks the northern border of Israel...however, some members of the tribe must have remained in the south. With the rise of the monarchy, these southern clans were apparently assimilated into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.”

Thus, Payne quotes Walvoord as stating: “Dan...was small in number, and probably thereafter was classified with Naphtali, born of the same mother as Dan.” But nonetheless, Walvoord adds, “However, Dan is mentioned in Ezekiel 48:2 in the millennial land distribution.” That latter comment, of course, is only pertinent assuming that (1) Ezekiel's listing refers to the end times and (2) is to be taken literally, both of which are highly disputed points.

Aberrant Religious Practices

Concerning the possibility that idolatry was Dan's main problem, one of the few inscriptions identifying

 by name a geographical location in the Bible was found at the remains of 3rd-2nd cent. BC Dan. It

 read, "to God who is in Dan" in Greek and Aramaic. Archeologists have discovered a number of items

 associated with the temple at Dan. From a count of the types of animal bones found there, they 

conclude that sacrificial worship was observed strictly according to levitical laws (Leviticus 7:8, 

32-33; Exodus 29:27-28). This may indicate that God's displeasure with the temple was not at all due 

to how they worshipped, but where they built their temple (i.e. not in Jerusalem).

Morris points out that this was the favored view of the rabbis. “Thus Rabbi Johanan said that Abraham 

prophetically 'saw his descendants who would practice idolatry in Dan.'”

“There are those who are sealed to defy the totality of Satan's secular dominion. They are drawn from

 the various tribes of Israel...Dan and Ephraim are missing from the list. In Old Testament history, both

 these tribes were prominent for their connection with idolatry. Perhaps in a coming day they take the

 lead in hailing the beast as Messiah.” (Phillips)

Ellul, along with most scholars, sees a description of two groups of saved in Chapter 7. One is an 

uncountable number of all non-Jewish people (vv. 9-12). As for the 144,000, he states that “it is a  

group that comes first; it can finally not be evaded that there is the designation of the tribes of Israel

(and even with the device, become traditional, of the suppression of the unfaithful tribe of Dan,

 replaced by Manasseh, still an issue of Joseph, as the tribe of Joseph.). All this denotes the first people

 of God, composed as this people has been, with a specific election.”

Dan as the tribe of the Antichrist

The early church father Iraeneus took this idea from the Greek version of Jeremiah 8:16 solely on the

 words, “The snorting of his horses was heard from Dan.” (Douglas) And in the apocryphal Testament

of Daniel, it states that Satan is that tribe's prince. Morris adds, “Dan's bad reputation may be quite old,

for this tribe (along with Zebulun) is omitted from the genealogies in the early chapters of I 

Chronicles.”

Bruce responds to the above by stating: “But this roll-call of the tribes is schematic; we are not dealing 

with a census tribe by tribe as in Num. 1:20ff.; 26:5ff., and need not be over-concerned about the

 inclusion of Manasseh or the exclusion of Dan.”

GOD'S TWO-FOLD COMMAND IN GENESIS 2:15

God's words to Adam and Eve as they entered the Garden of Eden were that they were to guard and till it. Those same two verbs ('bd and smr, respectively) appear in tandem elsewhere in the Bible, but are often hard to recognize since there a variety of options translators have at hand with which to render them into English. Concerning just Genesis 2:15, we can see the following:

        NEB: till and care

        Jerusalem Bible: cultivate and take care of

        Living Bible: tend and care for

        KJV: dress and keep

        NIV: work and take care of

        RSV and NRSV: till and keep

Other possible renderings of 'abad include: do, make, move, and work. Similarly, shamar can mean: beware, look narrowly, mark, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save, spy, take heed, wait for, or watch. Below are selected comments from different scholarly sources who attempt to shed light on this difficult passage:

Ellison: “It is to be noted that man had not only to till the garden but also to 'guard' it – take care is an unduly weak rendering of samar..; there was danger, unspecified, outside.”

Kline: “Subjugation of the earth (cf. 1:28) began with the cultivation of the garden. Keep it is perhaps a cultic charge, i.e. to guard the sanctity of God's dwelling; cf. the use of the same verb samar in 3:24; Ne. 13:22; Zc. 3:7.”

Jacques Ellul closes his book The Politics of God and the Politics of Man with what he calls 'Meditating on Inutility' in which he takes God's commands in Genesis 2:15 as a starting point. He describes our basic position with these words: “We are driven by the utility of the world and the importance of results...What matters is that it be useful.” But in contrast, he suggests, “To be controlled by utility and the pursuit of efficacy is to be subject to the strictest determination of the actual work. To want to attain results is necessarily not to be witness to the free gift of God. If we are ready to be unworthy or unprofitable servants (although busy and active at the same time), then our works can truly rebound to the glory of him who freely loved us first. God loved us because he is love and not to get results.” As one pastor of my youth once said, “God calls us to be faithful, not successful.”

Merrill says, “When God created Adam, he placed him in the garden for the express purpose of working ('bed) and overseeing (smr) it (Gen 2:15). The garden – perhaps a microcosm of all creation – provided a testing ground for humanity.” Unfortunately, this was a test which they failed to pass.

“The word we have translated dress is 'abad,' the normal Hebrew verb meaning 'to serve.' So again the note is sounded that man is placed in the garden as servant. He is there not to be served but to serve. The second verb – keep or 'tend' (Heb. samar) – carries a slightly different nuance. The basic meaning is 'to exercise great care over,' to the point, if necessary, of guarding...The same root is used in the next chapter to describe the cherubs who are on guard to prevent access to the tree of life in the garden (Gen. 3:24). The garden is something to be protected more than it is something to be possessed.” (Hamilton)

Although Hamilton neglects to mention the fact, note that both 'abad and samar appear together at the beginning and conclusion of the Garden of Eden episode to draw a boundary around it, much as there was an impenetrable boundary around the Garden, to form what is called in literary terms an inclusio.

“The expression work the ground ('abad with 'adama as object) appears in Gen. 2:5, 15; 3:23; 4:2, 12; Isa. 30:24; Zech. 13:5; Prov. 12:11; 28:19 (compare Ps. 104:14). This is an idiomatic expression and hence any effort to use the sense 'serve' in the verb 'abad is misguided.” (Collins)

But Ross says, “The two infinitives (translated 'to serve it' and 'to keep it') are...significantly chosen. The two verbs are used throughout the Pentateuch for spiritual service. 'Keep' (samar) is used for keeping the commandments and taking heed to obey God's Word; 'serve' ('abad) describes the worship and service of the Lord, the highest privilege a person can have. Whatever activity the man was to engage in in the garden (and there is no reason to doubt that physical activity was involved, it was described in terms of spiritual service of the Lord.”

Wenham expands on the above idea: “'abad 'to serve, till' is a very common verb and is often used of cultivating the soil (2:5; 3:23; 4:2,12, etc.). The word is commonly used in a religious sense of serving God (e.g. Deut 4:19), and in priestly texts, especially of the tabernacle duties of the Levites (Num 3:7-8; 4:23-24, 26, etc.). Similarly samar 'to guard, to keep' has the simple profane sense of 'guard' (4:9; 30:31), but is is even more commonly used in legal texts of observing religious commands and duties (17:9; Lev 18:5) and particularly of the Levitical responsibility for guarding the tabernacle from intruders (Num 1:53; 3:7-8). It is striking that here and in the priestly law these two terms are juxtaposed (Num 3:7-8; 8:26; 18:5-6), another pointer to the interplay of tabernacle and Eden symbolism already noted [in the rabbinic literature]. It should be noted that even before the fall man was expected to work; paradise was not a life of leisured unemployment.”

Walton's five-page exposition on the Garden of Eden episode expands even more on some of the above ideas. I will not attempt to quote him extensively here, but merely highlight a few of the ideas he brings forth in his essay:

“When we see that creation as a whole was understood in terms of a cosmic temple complex, it would be logical to understand the garden as the antechamber to the Holy of Holies. Eden proper would be the Holy of Holies, and the garden adjoins it as the antechamber...With this understanding it can be appreciated that in the aftermath of the Fall, the greatest loss was not access to paradise; it was access to God's presence.”

“The verbs 'abad and samar...are terms most frequently encountered in discussions of human service to God rather than descriptions of agricultural tasks. The verb 'abad certainly can refer to farming activity (e.g. Gen 2:5; 3:23), but in those contexts the nuance of the verb is conditioned by its direct object (the ground). When the verb does not take a direct object, it often refers to the work connected with one's vocation (e.g.Ex 20:9). The broader sense of the word is often connected to religious service deemed as worship (e.g. Ex 3:12) or of priestly functionaries serving in the sanctuary precinct (e.g. Num 3:7-10). In these cases, the object o f the verb usually refers to what or whom is being worshipped (e.g. Ex 4:23; 23:33).”

Walton's conclusion is based on four pillars: “(1) since there are several contexts in which samar is used for levitical service along with 'abad (e.g., Num 3:8-9), (2) since the contextual use of samar here favors sacred service, (3) since 'abad is as likely to refer to sacred service as to agricultural tasks and (4) since there are other indications that the garden is being portrayed as sacred space, it is likely that the tasks given to Adam are of a priestly nature: caring for sacred space was a way of upholding creation. By preserving order, chaos was held at bay. If the priestly vocabulary in Genesis 2:15 indicates the same kind of thinking here, the point of caring for sacred space should be seen as much more than landscaping or even priestly duties. Maintaining order made one a participant with God in the ongoing task of sustaining the equilibrium God had established in the cosmos.”

Additional insights into this ubiquitous verb pair can be gained by consulting the other OT references given above. As just one small example, Schutz says this regarding the Septuagint version of Proverbs 13:3; 16:7; and 19:16, “he who guards his mouth, his way, keeps the commandment (in each case phylasso) preserves or keeps his life (tereo).”