HEALING THE DEMONIAC (MARK 5:1-20; LUKE 8:26-39)

 

                                                    Decapolis News (collage, 2009)

All three Synoptic Gospel accounts relate this story, but since Matthew's account is much shorter we will only concentrate on the other two. The wording between Mark and Luke is fairly similar, and the major difference between them is in the order of the events. Since both accounts contain flashbacks, here is the strictly chronological order:

1. Man lived alone in the tombs

2. He is engaged in self-destructive behavior

3. He approaches Jesus as boat docks

4. Jesus commands the spirit to come out of him

5. The man cries out for Jesus not to torment him

6. Jesus asks him for his name

7. The unclean spirit replies, “Legion”

8. The spirit begs to be allowed to enter swine

9. Jesus gives him permission

10. The swine run into the water and are drowned

11. Swineherds tell everyone

12. People see the man clothed and in his right mind

13. They beg Jesus to leave the area

14. Jesus enters boat

15. Man wants to stay with Jesus

16. Jesus tells him to go home and tell his friends what happened

17. Jesus returned to Galilee

Mark narrates the events in this order: #3, 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6-16, and omits 17.

Luke's account is given even more out of chronological order: #3, 1, 5, 4, 2, 6-14, 17, 15, 16. But by doing so, he has created the completely symmetrical literary organization shown below:

                                     Figure 1: Literary Structure of Luke 8:26-39

    A. Jesus arrives in boat from Galilee (#3a)

        B. Possessed man meets him (#3b)

            C. Man had no home (#1)

                    D. Man requests Jesus to leave him alone (#5)

                        E. Jesus commanded spirit to come out of him (#4)

                            F. Man's self-destructive behavior (#2)

                                G. Spirit tells Jesus his name (#6-7)

                        E'. Jesus lets them enter the swineherds (#8-9)

                            F'. Swine's self-destructive behavior (#10)

                    D'. People ask Jesus to leave them (#11-13)

    A'. Jesus enters boat and returns home (#14,17)

        B'. Healed man meets him (#15)

            C'. Jesus tells man to go home (#16)

This chiastic organization explains why there is the total non sequitur in B’ of the healed man meeting Jesus after he has already departed in the boat.

The parallel between C and C' is stronger in Luke's account than in Mark since the specific word “house” now appears in both sections.

E' continues the exorcism begun in E in that Jesus grants the spirits' request that they not be left without a body to inhabit, to their resulting doom.

Most commentators feel that Luke's account was based on that of Mark, which came earlier. Thus, Marshall says, “There was no need for Luke to make extensive alterations to his source in order to underline the message...he has merely improved the narrative stylistically...Luke develops the flash-back [of Mark] by incorporating the details [i.e. Section F] about the man's madness which he had earlier omitted...By this alteration Luke perhaps emphasizes the compassionate reason why Jesus acted to exorcise the man from the demon.”

Marshall may perhaps be correct regarding the placement of Section F above, but the literary reason as providing a perfect parallel to F' appears to be a much stronger motif. Both units demonstrate the irrational need for the evil spirits to destroy God's creations, even at the risk of losing their own abodes. As Marcus says, “This gruesomely funny conclusion [i.e. F'] emphasizes the destructiveness of the demons as well as their shortsightedness; incapable of restraining their brutal rage, they unintentionally destroy their new lodgings and so thwart their own desire to stay on Gerasene soil.”

Then there are scholars such as Mann who feel that Luke's was the earlier version of the two. But even he has to admit: “It must be said that proponents of Markan priority would reply that Luke (as a far more elegant prose writer) improved on the text before him.”

And in analyzing the logic of Mark's account, H. Anderson sees nothing but awkward verses pieced together from several sources with interruptions added by Mark himself. Whether or not one agrees with his reasoning, it must be admitted that Luke presents a much more polished version of the narrative.

Interestingly, some commentators (such as Marshall and Fitzmyer) and translators (such as KJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV) treat the notice that Jesus had commanded the evil spirits to vacate the man (Unit E above) as a parenthetical comment that is not really necessary to the story, whether in Mark or Luke's account. By contrast, note that Figure 1 shows that it is vital for providing a perfect parallel to E'.

In Mark's Gospel, this comment appears at 5:8. Lane has this to say about this placement: “In the act of kneeling, the defensive use of the divine name and the violent invocation of God to strengthen the plea that Jesus would not torment him, there is the full recognition of Jesus' superior power on the part of the demon. On this understanding verse 8 is in its original position...Other suggestions have been made concerning the position of verse 8, the most noteworthy conjecture being that the verse originally stood before verse 7, and perhaps in place of verse 6...Such conjectures, however, are unnecessary if verse 8 is seen as an explanatory insertion by Mark similar to Ch. 6:62.”

Translating those “noteworthy conjectures” to Luke's structure in Figure 1 would mean moving Section E to a position before D or in place of B, both destroying entirely the symmetry of the arrangement.

Section G is the center point of Figure 1. Swift notes, “Two explanations have been given of the question, what is you name? First, the ancient belief that knowledge of the name gave power over an adversary. Alternatively, and more probably, it was to recall the man to a sense of his own personality apart from the demon.” Short agrees with the second of these explanations, but either one provides an apt turning point in the narrative.

JOSEPH AS A TYPE OF CHRIST

In Evans and Movakovic's article on “Typology” in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, they list ten different categories of Old Testament types of Jesus. These include Moses, Elijah-Elisha, David, Son of Man, Servant, Adam, Jonah, Rejected Stone, High Priest, and OT Sacrifice. But there is no mention of Joseph, which is understandable since the NT never specifically associates Joseph with Christ. Despite that absence, there is abundant evidence that Jesus in his life and teachings provides numerous echoes of events in the Joseph Cycle, especially in Joseph's life. These are listed below in roughly the order of events in Genesis 37-49.

Similarity                                                         Genesis                     New Testament

favorite son                                                     37:3a                          Matthew 3:17

have a special garment                                   37:3b                          John 19:23

brothers turn against them                              37:4                            John 7:3-5

prominence of dreams                                    37:5-10,etc.                Matthew 1-2

future greatness predicted                              37:9-10                       Luke 1:32

parent ponders revelation                               37:11                          Luke 2:19

clothing removed by others                            37:12                          Matthew 27:27-31

enemies conspire to kill                                  37:18                          Mark 3:6

“Come! Let us kill him”                                 37:20                          Matthew 21:38

travelers with myrrh                                       37:25                          Matthew 2:11

rise from the pit                                              37:28                          Luke 24:5

sold for a slave's price                                    37:28                          Matthew 26:15

Jacob and Rachel cry for dead children         37:34-35                     Mathew 2:18

family goes to Egypt                                      37:36                           Matthew 2:14

finds favor in people's eyes                           39:4,21                         Luke 2:52

becomes a servant to others                           39:4                             John 13:4-17

faithful and prudent manager                        39:4-5                           Luke 12:42-46

master leaves him in charge                          39:8-9                           Luke 2:49; John 13:3

turn from physical temptation                       39:8-11                         Matthew 4:3-4

flees leaving garment behind                        39:12                            Mark 14:51-52

                                                                                                            Luke 24:12; John 20:6-7

The Lord is with them                                  39:21                             Luke 1:28; Acts 7:9;10:38

prophesies the future                                     40-41                             Matthew 24, etc.

“remember me when it is well for you”       40:14                             Luke 23:42

promise forgotten                                         40:14-15,23                    Matthew 26:33-35,73

only one of two fellow prisoners saved       40:16-22                         Luke 23:39-43

man identified with bread is hanged            40:22                              Mark 14:21; Matthew 27:5

feed the people miraculously                       41:33-36                         Matthew 14-15

second only to the pharaoh / Father             41:40                              Luke 22:29

given ring and dressed in fine clothes          41:42                              Luke 15:20-24

“Do what he tells you to do”                        41:55                              John 2:5

bow down before him                                  42:6; 43:26                     Mark 15:19

people do not recognize him                        42:8                                Luke 24:16; John 21:4

foot washing as a sign of hospitality            43:24                              John 13:1-30

both wept                                                      43:30;45:2                     Luke 19:41

vessel as indication of guilty party               44:6-13                          John 13:21-30

has supper with eleven                                 44:26-34                        John 13:31-17:26

he reveals his identity                                  45:3-4                             Luke 24:31

“sent ahead” to prepare                                45:5; 46:28                     John 3:28; 14:2-3

save their people                                          45:5                                 John 12:47

“do not be afraid”                                        46:3-4                              Luke 1:12-13

laying hands on children; blessing them     48:14-15                          Matthew 19:13-15

God/Jesus as shepherd                                48:15                                John 10:1-42

the field Jacob gave Joseph                        48:21-22                           John 4:1

donkey and its colt                                      49:11                                Matthew 21:5

forgive those who tried to kill them           50:15-21                           Luke 23:34

evil intentions accomplish God's will        50:20                                 Mark 14:21

You may notice from the above table, that there are no such parallels for Genesis 38. That is because that chapter is devoted wholly to incidents in the life of Judah instead of Joseph. But since it is part of the whole Joseph Cycle, we should note how it also fits in with the life of Jesus. Its importance in that context is seen in the fact that Tamar is the first of five women listed in the genealogy of Jesus found in Matthew 1:1-16. She shares several things in common with those other ancestresses:

Tamar was a probable Canaanite; Rahab was a Canaanite; and Ruth was a Moabite. Thus, Bathsheba and Mary were the only Jews in the list, and even Bathsheba was married to a Hittite.

Tamar acted the part of a prostitute (Genesis 38:15) , and Rahab was in fact a prostitute.

Both Tamar and Ruth lost their first husbands.

The nearest relative was denied to Tamar and Ruth even though the levirate law demanded it.

Both Tamar and Ruth go to extraordinary lengths to continue their lines even though their actions transgressed sexual standards of the time.

Both Tamar and Mary become pregnant while engaged to another man.

Both Tamar (Genesis 38:28) and Rahab (Joshua 2:18) are associated with a crimson cord.

In the case of Tamar and Bathsheba, it is a younger son who becomes the ancestor of Jesus.

All of the women except Bathsheba are praised in the Bible for their character and actions.

144,000 VIRGINS (REVELATION 14:1-5)

This is one of the most puzzling images in a book filled with nothing but puzzles. And as usual in interpreting Revelation, there are a number of interrelated factors that go together to shape one's view of any particular detail in the book. While realizing this reality, it is still tempting to isolate one specific image, such as those who are pictured as “virgins who have never been polluted with women” and see if any sense can be made of it.

G.K. Beale has provided us with a fairly thorough review of opinions regarding the meaning of this phrase. So, I will begin by using it as a general template to present the major points of view on the subject. These fall into two categories, the literal and the figurative.

Literal Understanding

a. a particular group of celibate men and women is in mind

Some commentators take this view, but to do so requires them to paradoxically take the word “virgin” literally while ignoring the fact that the literal Greek also indicates that only men are being being referred to. Similarly, they feel bound to take the number 144,000 literally when throughout the OT and NT, 12 refers to the people of God, whether it is the 12 tribes of Israel or the 12 apostles. And the number 1,000 is used in both Testaments more times as a representative of an unspecified large number than as a literal number. The product of those three figurative numbers (7x7x1,000) would hardly be expected to refer to a literal number, so neither would the term “virgin.”

Beale points to some earlier commentators, such as Moffatt, who felt that 'virgins' was “a literal reference to a group of celibate men or to celibate men and women (cf. Matt. 19:12). One problem with these literal views is that nowhere else does Scripture view sexual relations within the bond of marriage as sinful. Furthermore, if the 144,000 is a symbol for the entire people of God, that would mean that John required celibacy for the whole church, which is improbable.”

b. those living in times that were not conducive to regular married lives

Walvoord says, “Reference to the purity of the 144,000 could be recognition that during the difficult times of the Tribulation they could not have led normal married lives.” But even this vaunted literalist waffles on this view, as can be seen below.

c. those married or single people who abstained from sexual immorality

F.F. Bruce states that celibacy “implies that married men have 'defiled themselves with women' – something so contrary to the uniform biblical teaching on marriage (cf. Heb. 13:4) that it is unlikely to be introduced incidentally in so thoroughly 'Hebraic' a book as this. More probably the reference is to people who have been, in the language of the Pastoral Letters, 'the husband on one wife.'”

d. those men who abstained from sexual practices at pagan temples

That concept is certainly included in the term “virgin” but should not be specifically limited to it.

Carrington is one of the few commentators who have adopted this stance, but as Beale point out, “even he remains open to a more figurative understanding.”

Figurative Understanding

Morris summarizes the objections to the literal view with the following words: “they were not defiled by women; for they are virgins. This is surprising, in the first instance because the 144,000 stands for the whole church and it is not easy to apply the first part of the saying to women members, nor the second part to men, and in the second instance because the New Testament does not regard sexual relations as defiling. This idea was found in the ancient world, and in time became prominent in the church. But it is not found in the New Testament.”

a. military imagery

This idea begins with the understanding voiced by Kim: “The risen Christ, the victorious Lamb, is present with his church (Rev. 1:13; 21) and leads it as his army (Rev 14:1,4; 17:14) into the battle against the satanic trinity.”

“Caird argues that the symbolism of v. 4 is based on the background of Israelite soldiers being required to preserve ceremonial purity before battle (e.g. Deut. 23:9-10; 1 Sam. 21:5; 2 Sam. 11:8-11...While possible, this does not account for the dominating metaphor of virginity, which is an essential part of the symbolism.” (Beale)

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery mixes this metaphor with that in category c below: “In Revelation the church is pictured as an army...which follows a Lamb singing and playing harps (Rev 14:1-4) and which goes into battle like a bride wearing wedding garments rather than armor (Rev 19:7-8,14).”

b. OT imagery for Israel

“The word 'virgin' is repeatedly applied to the nation of Israel in the OT...As is typical in Revelation, this description of Israel is now applied to the church...In the OT Israel's idolatries, as well as their political and economic practices, were pictured as 'harlotry'...Their worship of idols was referred to as 'defilement'. The picture of preventing 'pollution' occurred earlier in Revelation to refer to Christians who had not identified with idolatrous institutions such as emperor worship or trade guild idolatry...The same notion is conveyed here.” (Beale and McDonough)

Somewhat surprisingly, Walvoord appears to lean toward this figurative understanding. He admits that the virginity of the 144,000 “may refer to spiritual purity, often symbolized by virginity (cf. 2 Kings 19:21; Isa. 37:22; Jer. 18:13; 31:4,21; Lam. 2:13; Amos 5:2). In 2 Corinthians 11:2 the concept of virginity is extended to the entire church, including both sexes.”

c. NT bride of Christ imagery

“The identity of the 144,000 seems determined by 7:1-8 and 5:9,10. John would hardly represent two different groups by such an extraordinary and obviously symbolic number...We therefore take this vision to portray the Church possessing the advent glory of Christ in the millennial age...it is impossible, therefore to regard it as numbering unmarried men only. It seems best to interpret the language as symbolic, denoting the spiritual purity of men and women who form the bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 11:2).” (Beasley-Murray)

“A leading ingredient in the Bible's eschatological images of the future age is the restored wholeness that glorified saints will finally enjoy in perpetuity...At one is the union of people with God and Christ, pictured as a marriage (Rev 19:7; 21:2,9) and as an existence in which the redeemed follow the Lamb wherever he goes.” (Rev 14:4 RSV).” (DBI)

Immediate Context

Above, I have already mentioned the effect the words “144,000” and the concept of a male “virgin” have on our understanding. The other imagery in Revelation 14:1-4 which needs to be taken into account in any interpretation is the reference to these people as being “first fruits.” That would seem to indicate that this is just one particular group of the saved such as perhaps the martyrs, not the whole church. But that is not necessarily the case, as the following two commentators note:

“The risen Jesus...is the 'beginning of God's [new] creation' (Rev 3:14; cf. 1:5; Col 1:15,18), and those who obediently follow this Lamb are its 'first fruits' (aparche, Rev 14:4; cf. 11:11).” (C.C. Newman)

Wilkins addresses this question with the same answer as above: “Those who have been chosen by God for salvation in Christ are the firstfruits of a redeemed creation (cf. 2 Thess 2:13; Rev 14:4; Rom 8:19-23).” Therefore there is no need to posit a particular group of believers such as the martyrs for this “first group of people,” since what follows will apparently be whatever remainder of God's created universe He chooses to save.

HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC (MATTHEW 9:2-8; MARK 2:1-11; LUKE 5:17-26)

 

                                                    2009 collage

This is one of several miracle stories in which it is the faith of friends and neighbors that is commended rather than that of the afflicted person. Other examples are found at Matthew 8:10 and Mark 7:32;8:22. But this story, attested in all the Synoptic account, goes beyond a “simple” healing narrative in that it deals with both sin and physical infirmities. Here is what the Old Testament has to say regarding the relationship between sin and illness:

    “If you will listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God...I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.” (Exodus 15:26)

    “If you do not diligently observe all the words of this law...then the LORD will overwhelm both you and your offspring with severe and lasting afflictions.” (Deuteronomy 28:58-59)

    “Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-5a)

    “There is no soundness in my flesh because of your indignation; there is no health in my bones because of my sin.” (Psalm 38:3)

    And, of course, there is the attitude of Job's friends toward his illness.

In contrast, New Testament teachings are more ambiguous regarding the relationship between the two. Sin and illness are sometimes discussed together but distinguished from one another. A prime example of this is seen in the episode in question. There are virtually no differences in wording between the three parallel accounts of the paralytic's healing by Jesus. Here is the central point as related by Matthew:

    “He said to the paralytic, 'Take heart, son, your sins are forgiven.' Then some of the scribes said to themselves, 'This man is blaspheming.' But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, 'Why do you think evil in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Stand up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins' – he then said to the paralytic – 'Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.' And he stood up and went to his home.”

Writing from a form-critical point of view, Fitzmyer declares: “Into this miracle-story, a pronouncement story has been inserted [with the pronouncement itself preserved in Luke 5:23], which relates to it Jesus' power to forgive sins. In fact, it makes of the whole episode a story more concerned with this than with the cure itself. The joining of the two stories gives evidence of a new manifestation of Jesus' power; hitherto [in Luke's Gospel] he has been depicted curing (4:38-39,40-41; 5:12-15), exorcising (4:31-37), and working a miracle over nature (5:4-9a); now the power of the Lord that attends him is related not only to a cure but also to the forgiveness of sin.”

One does not need to agree with Fitzmyer's thesis that two diverse traditions have been artificially joined together in order to agree with his other contentions. It seems patently obvious that this episode centers just as much, if not more, on the issue of forgiveness as it does on the miraculous cure itself.

Reaction of the Critics

After Jesus' initial pronouncement to the paralytic, the scribes (and Pharisees according to Luke) openly label Jesus a blasphemer since “only God can forgive sins.” Whenever I have read this story, I will admit that I have been somewhat sympathetic to their reaction. But several commentators actually feel that these Jewish leaders may have something more that just righteous indignation as their motive in criticizing Jesus:

    “Matthew 1:21 assumes that God as Israel's savior...will save Israel from its sins through Jesus as instrument of salvation and thereby subtly construct an opposition to the temple cult as institution for the remission of sins (cf. Mt 9:1-8).” (Van der Watt and du Toit)

    “Jesus forgave sins (Mt 9:1-8; Mk 2:1-12; Lk 5:17-26; 7:36-50; cf. Jn 20:23), behavior that for a first-century Jew could be derived from an understanding of the responsibilities of the true high priest, as God's representative and real presence (Ex 28:28; Lev 10:17).” (Fletcher-Louis)

    “Although by no means certain, the high priest typology of Hebrews (see Heb 4-7) may derive in part from certain priestly prerogatives that Jesus had assumed. The most significant of these were his declarations of the forgiveness of sins (Mk 2:5-10; Lk 7:48.” (Evans and Novakovic)

    “Many of Jesus' sayings and actions no doubt were viewed as being critical of the temple. For instance, Jesus' extending forgiveness to the paralytic in Mark 2:5 (cf. Mt 9:2; Lk 5:20), especially if Jesus did such a thing on more than one occasion would have outraged the temple priests because Jesus would be offering forgiveness outside the temple and the sacrificial cult officiated by the authorities.” (Dennis)

Thus, the real reason for their anger at Jesus' words may not have been to defend God's honor but to defend their own personal positions in the official Jewish hierarchy.

Jesus' Counter-Argument

“Jesus' use of a counter-question in situations of debate recurs in other [Markan] narratives (3:4; 11:30; 12:37) and appears to be characteristic of his response to conflict...By use of a counter-question Jesus challenges their facile assumption that he has acted irresponsibly as a dispenser of cheap grace.” (Lane)

“The rhetorical question...implies that if the 'harder' of the two options can be demonstrated, the 'easier' may be assumed also to be possible. It might be suggested that to forgive sins is the harder, since only God can do it, but Jesus' question is not about which is easier to do, but which is easier to say, and a claim to forgive sins is undoubtedly easier to make, since it cannot be falsified by external events, whereas a claim to make a paralyzed man walk will be immediately proved true or false by a success or failure which everyone can see...This use of the comparative eukoperon, 'easier,' to express an a fortiori argument seems to be a distinctive usage of Jesus; it occurs in Greek only in the sayings of Jesus (cf. Matt 19:24 and parallels; Luke 16:17).” (France)

Aftermath

Of course, the result is that Jesus does heal the paralytic at the end. Not only that, but it is interesting that the crowd immediately recognizes the ultimate source of the healing, God Himself. And therefore they praise Him. Note that the crowd saw what the Jewish authorities were to blind to see or did not wish to see – Jesus was not at all blaspheming God, instead he was channeling God's power to both forgive and heal, and doing it without any of the temple trappings and personnel

II THESSALONIANS 3:6-15

Unlike many other letters of Paul which conclude with a miscellaneous list of practical admonitions, II Thessalonians devotes these ten verses to a single subject – the presence of the “idle” in their congregation. Actually, that Greek word and its derivatives have been translated in two basically different ways: either “idle, lazy” (RSV, NRSV, NEB, Living Bible, The Message, TEV) or “disorderly, disruptive” (KJV, Phillips, NASB, AB). NIV straddles the fence by calling those people “idle and disruptive.” In a similar manner, The Jerusalem Bible labels this section “Against Idleness and Disunity.”

The supposed origin of the root ataki- comes from a military setting in which it refers to those who are “out of step” with everyone else. But it is easy to see from the context of this II Thessalonians passage that the specific way in which these people were being disruptive was in their refusal to work like the others in the Christian community. Indeed, as Elias notes, within the NT the Greek root only appears in the two letters to the Thessalonians so that “we are largely restricted to the clues contained within these two epistles” in order to determine its proper meaning.

The flow of this passage takes a literary, rather than a strictly logical, form as shown below:

                                      Figure I: The Structure of II Thessalonians 3:6-15

    A. Keep away from them, brothers (v. 6a)

            B. The earlier received tradition (v. 6b)

                    C. Paul's example of unselfish behavior (vv. 7-9)

            B'. The earlier given command (v. 10)

                    C'. The idler's example of wrongdoing (v. 11)

            B''. Reiterated command to work quietly and do right (vv. 12-13)

    A'. Keep away from them, brothers (vv. 14-15)

Bolstering up this symmetrical literary organization is the presence of specific words to tie together parallel units. Thus, “brothers” and “believers” appear in A and A'; “brothers” also occurs in B and B'; “command” is in B' and B''; “idle(ness)” is found in C and C'; “for” begins both C and C'; and “imitate” acts as a set of bookends to enclose C.

With that background, we can now briefly consider what some Bible scholars have to say about the text:

II Thessalonians 3:6 – Sumney: “The lives of Paul and other faithful leaders exemplify the mold living believers are to imitate (3:6-7), but prior apostolic instruction is the basis for determining what constitutes ethical living.”

“Elsewhere Paul employs the formulas 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (1 Cor. 5:4) and 'by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1:10) precisely where he is issuing emphatic commands regarding the behavior of the community. At a theological level the addition of 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' to a command implies that the command is not simply Paul's but that it has the sanction of the Lord Jesus Christ himself...As the second part of the verse makes clear, Paul adds to his theological coercion the coercive power of the community to enforce the prescribed form of conduct.”

II Thessalonians 3:7-9 – “In an ethics of Christian discipleship, the master is Christ, yet secondarily, disciples also learn to recognize excellence of practice by observing and imitating those who are more mature in the faith.” (Tousley and Kallenberg) And Cosgrove says, “Moral teaching is not only by word but also by personal examples to be imitated.”

As an aside, Wanamaker notes that “the broken grammatical construction of v. 8 is inexplicable if the writer had direct access to 1 Thess. 2:9 [a similar statement] where Paul makes good grammatical sense.” This helps confirm my own deductions based on structural considerations that II Thessalonians was actually written before I Thessalonians (see my reasoning in “I and II Thessalonians: Introduction to the Literary Structure”).

II Thessalonians 3:10 – M.A. Powell states, “Positively, work is to be encouraged (2 Thess. 3:10-12) and, indeed, viewed as a vocation from God.”

II Thessalonians 3:11 – “Paul employs work imagery in commending the Thessalonians for their 'work of faith and labor of love' (I Thess 1:3)...but more striking is the forthright instruction to 'work hard with your hands' (I Thess 4:11).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Banks points out that “we should avoid idleness (2 Thess. 3:11-13), but we should not fall into the opposite error of too much busywork.” And that includes being a busybody.

As to the source of this idle attitude and behavior, Sumney and others conjecture: “The conduct of the 'disorderly' (the 'idle' of 3:6-15) flows from their overrealized eschatology. Asserting that their experience of a spiritual coming of Christ gives them superior spiritual blessings and abilities, they quit their jobs, impose themselves as ministers on the church, and demand salaries. This letter rejects their eschatology and understanding of spirituality by telling the church not to to support them. Proper conduct for members follows the apostolic example of giving of oneself for the good of the church, and it does not include demanding deference and pay.”

Unfortunately, I have run into extreme examples of this very behavior in two churches I have attended in the past. One acquaintance tried to drum up financial support for himself and his whole family to take an extended vacation in Europe with the idea that they would witness to people they met on the way. And another man had the plan to get the church members to support him while he quit his job, moved to another city, and witnessed to his neighbors in the evenings. And neither of them even had the excuse of believing in realized eschatology.

II Thessalonians 3:12-13 – “Like no other Pauline epistles, 1 and 2 Thessalonians establish and reinforce a work ethic...Idleness is singled out as the most shameful behavior in the Thessalonian community.” (DBI)

Wanamaker points out that the opening words of this verse have been taken by some scholars as indication that a new subject is being introduced. However, he feels, as indicated also in Figure I above, that “vv. 14f. are probably intended as a clarification of v. 6.”

II Thessalonians 3:14-15 – C. Marshall notes that “New Testament texts on punishment fall into two main categories: those that refer to punitive practices in wider Roman society...and those that describe disciplinary actions within the community of faith. In the latter case, physical or financial punishments are never imposed as a means of church discipline...In every case, it can be shown that the goal of such punishment was to clarify the moral demands of discipleship and to summon repentance from offenders and their reintegration into the community.”

Sumney agrees with this contention: “Christians who fail to live by the expected standards...are not relegated to the ranks of the unbelievers destined for destruction. Such errant believers remain part of the family of believers, and they must be set apart from the community but not treated as enemies. Rather, the church is to nurture their return to full fellowship.”

In order to emphasize this point, Paul purposely employs the description “believers” twice in this passage, both times referring specifically to the idlers.

The verb “associate with” appears only one other time in the NT, at I Corinthians 5:9-11 where Paul instructs believers to “dissociate themselves from anyone who claims to be Christian but is guilty of immorality.” (Wanamaker) That shows how seriously Paul also takes the issue of idleness at Thessalonica.

 

LUKE 5:1-11 (FISHERS OF MEN)

 

This well-known event takes place on the shore of the Lake of Gennesaret, better known as the Sea of Galilee. And Riesner gets even more specific regarding the location: “Halfway between Capernaum and Tabgha lies a small inlet whose acoustic properties may have served well as Jesus preached at water's edge (Lk. 5:1-3).”

In broad strokes, Jesus comes on the scene and encounters a small group of fishermen who have just finished a futile night on the sea without getting any fish. But by the time the story is done, they leave their boats and go with Him as fishers of men. In between those two events, Jesus makes two requests of Peter, which he obeys. The first request is the loan of Peter's boat so that Jesus can preach to the crowd, and the second one results in a net overflowing with fish. Acting as a bracketing device for this story is the phrase “boats on shore” at the beginning and end.

There are parallel, but more abbreviated, narratives to this episode found in Mark 1:16-20 and Matthew 4:18-22. But the real controversy among scholars is in regard to the somewhat similar story given at the end of John's Gospel (John 21:14). Thus, we have the following two points of view:

More liberal commentators such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer (interestingly both Catholic priests) almost take it for granted that only one such miraculous catch of fish originally happened due to the close similarities in detail between the two accounts. But that is certainly not the end of the debate. From the more conservative side, we get the opposite viewpoint.

    Borchert says, “What is most interesting in this discussion is the fact that of those who think that the two events reflect a single tradition, there is little consistency in their conclusions. For example, Brown favors a Lukan tradition in John, and Bultmann argues that the event in Luke is a displaced resurrection account...The reason for the problem is that while form and redactional methodologies can define possible patterns of form development similarities in base stories, and editorial enhancements, they are actually rather ineffective in defining the actual historical realities of these stories.”

    And L. Porter adds, “A very similar incident is described in Jn 21:5-11; but the differences in detail [which he enumerates] are sufficiently noticeable to make it clear that there were two separate incidents.” One could say that these two similar events at the start and end of Jesus' ministry on earth serve to roughly bracket His career.

With that background, here are a few specific observations collected from the scholarly literature:

    Luke 5:3 It may seem strange to the reader that Peter should obey a request to borrow his boat from a stranger such as Jesus, but that is only an artifact of the selection of episodes Luke chose to include in his particular Gospel. J.A. Martin notes several passages in the other gospels indicating that this was not the first or even the second time Jesus had made contact with these fishermen.

Once in the boat, Jesus sits down to teach. Fitzmyer notes, “The natural position of a companion in a small boat may be all that is implied. But then the position of a seated teacher may also be suggested (see 4:20).” I think that most of us are very glad today that it is the preacher who has to stand while the audience sits, instead of the reverse practice in NT times.

    Luke 5:4-5 Somewhat reluctantly, Peter obeys Jesus request to cast his net again. As Martin states, this “showed a significant amount of faith” on Peter's part. That was especially true since their fishing at night (by far the best time to do it) had been unsuccessful.

In verse 5, Peter calls Jesus, “Master.” Fitzmyer points out that in the Lucan writings that word is used of Jesus only by followers or disciples.” The question then becomes, “Were Peter and the others already disciples?”

Geldenhuys comments on the situation when this story began that “it becomes clear that, although they had followed Jesus at the first call, they did not yet follow Him in a complete and unconditional manner. They were still, at least for part of the time, engaged in their trade as fisherman until the final choice was made to leave all and follow Jesus (v. 11).”

    Luke 5:6-10a Then we come to the miracle itself and its immediate result on Peter. And, as Porter days, “Like James and John, Peter was astonished at what had happened but unlike them he was brought by the manifestation of divine power to an acute consciousness of his own unworthiness.”

However, as Marshall points out, He was not necessarily more sinful than other men, but he felt that fear which all sinful men ought to feel in the presence of the divine (cf. 13:21f).” Another biblical passage worth considering in this regard is Isaiah 6:5 – “Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a a generation of unclean lips: for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

Verse 9 says “Amazement gripped him.” Fitzmyer points to two other places in Luke's writing where that phrase appears: Luke 4:36 and Acts 3:10.

    Luke 5:10b At this point, Jesus reassures Peter with the words: “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be fishers of men.” Ellis says that “like the angel of Luke 1:12,30, Jesus is the mediator of the divine power and presence.” The first part of Jesus' words actually appear four additional times in Luke-Acts (Luke 8:50; 12:32; Acts 18:9; 27:24). Also see Jeremiah 16:16.

Thus, as Craddock puts it, “in Jesus' eyes his sin does not disqualify him; the same power that prompted Simon to fall at Jesus' knees now lifts him into God's service.” Ellis says the same thing: “The acted parable of the catch of fish reveals the remedy for Peter's lack of spiritual qualifications... What Jesus commands, he empowers to perform.”

Fitzmyer draws another lesson from this episode: “Through the miraculous draught of fishes the Savior thus taught them that He was able to provide for them and their dear ones. It was a valuable lesson to them that if they obeyed Him and entrusted themselves to Him, He would provide for them and their families even with regard to temporary needs.”

In contrast to Fitzmyer's assertion above, Marshall says, “Theories that the great catch of fish was meant to provide provision for the dependents of the disciples during their travels with Jesus or is an allegory of the catch of men which then would take place (Jn. 21:1-14) are alike speculative.”

In any case, “Fishing, along with shepherding, became lasting images of ministry in the church.” (Craddock)

And, as The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery points out, “The imagery [i.e. “fishers of men”] appears to have less of the connotation of possible judgment, which it has in the OT.” Passages to consider in this context include Ecclesiastes 9:12; Ezekiel 26:5,14; 29:3-7; Amos 4:2; and Habakkuk 1:15-17.

THE SERPENT IN THE WILDERNESS (NUMBERS 21:1-9)

 

                       Sympathetic Healing (2009, collage)

After the Israelites in the wilderness turn to God for help against their Canaanite foes, they are able to defeat them completely (vv. 1-3). But soon forgetting this obvious sign of God's protection over them, they again start grumbling about the lack of good food and water (vv. 4-6). To teach them a lesson, God sends poisonous serpents among the people which wreak havoc. But after Moses again acts as intercessor with God on their behalf (v. 7), He relents and provides an unusual remedy for the people who have been bitten – a snake image made of bronze which is placed on a pole for the afflicted to gaze on and be cured (vv. 8-9).

It is these last two verses which have most troubled Bible scholars and many other readers. Witness the following comments, beginning with those of some more liberal commentators:

    “This story, describing some kind of sympathetic magic, may give the etiology [i.e. origin] for the snake image in the Temple (cf. 2 Kings 18:4).” (D.P. Wright)

    “A plausible explanation of the text is offered by those...who argue that Num 21:4-9 is mainly an etiology designed to explain why, as in 2 Kgs 18:4 indicates, the bronze serpent, Nehishtan..., was venerated in temple worship during the monarchic period.” (Wakely)

    According to form critics, “legends deal with holy people..., places...or events. Their purpose is to edify the listener or reader. Legends are centered on things that are alleged to transpire within the experience of human beings...The bronze serpent of Numbers 21:4-9 is thus considered to be legend, as is the explanation of circumcision (Gen 17).” (R.A. Taylor)

    Wenham summarizes this position: “But despite its familiarity, some writers have questioned the historicity of this incident, suggesting that it is a fictitious explanation of the origin of the bronze serpent in the temple destroyed by Hezekiah (2 Ki. 18:4). More fundamental is the question why this means was appointed to cure snake-bites. Why did not God use a miracle without resort to a potentially misleading symbol.”

Dealing first with the historical issue, Wenham reports the finding of a temple occupied by the Midianites not long after the time of the wilderness wanderings in which a 5'' long copper snake was found. Therefore, he mentions the possibility that both the Midianite temple and copper serpent were ideas borrowed from the Jewish tabernacle. Therefore, “it seems likely that the story of the brazen serpent is based on a historical incident, and is not merely a retrojection of a later writer's imagination.”

Instead of speculating over the hypothetical source of the story as a fictional creation, conservative scholars prefer instead to treat it as a factual event which has spiritual lessons to teach us:

    Carson notes, “Verse 7 contains the first real confession in the book...In Wis. 16:6f [The Wisdom of Solomon was an apocryphal OT book written in the inter-testamental period] the bronze snake is called 'a token of deliverance'...for he that turned toward it was saved, not by what he saw but by thee, the Savior of all.”

    “Thus was Israel taught that only in God was their deliverance. The simple invitation to look and live (cf. Is. 45:22) was a test of faith. Poisonous snakes could be rendered harmless only by the mercy of God.” (Thompson)

    “Along with the snake's paradoxical combination of wisdom and evil, it represents not only death but also health and life. Perhaps its ability to administer death seemed to imply authority over life. The image of the serpent in the wilderness allowed those bitten to 'look and live' (Num 21:6-9), just as looking to the Christ gives life instead of sure death (Jn 3:14-15). John invokes the image of the serpent on the cross even though historically the Israelites had retained it as an idol called Nehushtan, and it became a cause for stumbling (2 Kings 18:4).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

    Other scholars mention the possibility that the snake's ability to shed his skin and grow it anew suggested it as an appropriate image of resurrection or renewed life.

    Stubbs: “The raising of the bronze serpent occurs at a turning point in Numbers – the seventh and final rebellion of Israel before they reach the plain of Moab...The high importance of the passage is matched only by the high level of bewilderment experienced by most modern interpreters in trying to make sense of it.”

He spends seven pages in his short Numbers commentary discussing various opinions concerning this difficult subject and comes to the following conclusion: “In contrast to these modern interpretations, serpent imagery elsewhere in the Bible leads one to see the serpent as a symbol associated with evil and sin...While the serpents could simply be a convenient method of punishment for YHWH, ready at hand in the wilderness, given the attention to the symbol in the passage, one might expect there to be a symbolic appropriateness to this punishment. At the most literal level, the serpents are agents of suffering and death...They are, and also come to represent, the physical difficulties of the journey to the promised land...In the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh (Exod. 4:3; 7:9,10,15), the serpent likely symbolized Egypt and her gods. In our passage, then, perhaps snakes represented God's punishment of Israel by a symbol of the object of their desires – life back in Egypt under the rule of the snake, Pharaoh, and the gods of Egypt.”

    “The point of lifting up the serpent may be to represent symbolically that the object was under the curse of God (cf. Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).” (Bietenhard)

    And then there is Wenham's opinion to take into account: “I suggest that the clue to the symbolism should be sought in the general principles underlying sacrifices and purifactory rites in the Old Testament...In all these rituals there is an inversion: normally polluting substances or actions may in a ritual context have the opposite effect and serve to purify. Those inflamed and dying through the bite of living snakes were restored to life by a dead reddish-colored snake.”

    But the real clue to the interpretation of this confusing passage may lie in its use as background to John's later utilization in John 3:14-15 to make a theological analogy. These verses reads as follows: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

    Kostenberger comments that “the primary analogy established in the present passage [John 3:14-15] is not that of the raised bronze serpent and the lifted up Son of Man; rather Jesus [or John, since the lack of punctuation in the Greek makes the point ambiguous]likens the restoration of the people's physical lives as a result of looking at the bronze serpent to the people's reception of eternal life as a result of 'looking' in faith at the Son of Man. Yet, as in the case of wilderness Israel, it is ultimately not a person's faith, but rather the God in whom the faith is placed, that is the source of salvation (cf. Wis. 16:6-7).”

I would agree with Kostenberger wholeheartedly except for one point. I think that the direct comparison between the serpent and the lifted-up Jesus on the cross is quite germane to the whole meaning of the OT passage. Jesus on the cross took on all our sins and the associated death penalty so that we could also equate him very well symbolically with death of the evil snake. And just as the snake was lifted up, so too were Jesus and all who gaze on him lifted up to glory.

"STAGE MOTHERS" IN THE BIBLE

For those of you who may not be familiar with the term 'stage mother,' it refers to a woman who relentlessly pushes her child's career in some sort of performing field to the exclusion of all other concerns and despite making herself generally unpopular to those she deals with, including the child himself or herself.

There are numerous real life examples to which one could point in order to illustrate this phenomenon. And it should be mentioned that “stage fathers and spouses” could just as well be included in this category.

As to the motives of the stage mothers, they may vary. Some may sincerely care for their child so much that they will sacrifice their own wants and needs in order to see that their child gets all that they deserve. But there is also the possibility that the stage mother is subconsciously trying to live out vicariously in her child's life the sort of career she herself wanted to have. Finally, it must be admitted that there are sad cases in which the child is merely viewed as a “money-making machine” who can be milked for all he or she is worth.

This same theme appears several times in Bible also, as seen in the examples below:

Sarah (Genesis 21:8-10)

In this story, Sarah demands that Abraham cast out her slave Hagar and her son Ishmael after she sees him playing with Isaac. Much depends in understanding this passage on the exact meaning of “playing with.” It has been taken at face value or felt by others to refer to Ishmael making fun of Isaac or even taking sexual advantage of him. In any case, it enrages Sarah to the point where she says that “the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac.”

We can say that she was justified in her action of protecting her son, slightly overreacting, or just looking for any excuse to remove Hagar and Ishmael from her life in order that her son would inherit alone.

Rebekah (Genesis 25:27-28; ch. 27)

Rebekah and Isaac are the poster parents representing the dangers of having favorite children in the family. But Rebekah takes it to the extreme in assuring that her son Jacob would obtain the favored blessing from Isaac rather than Esau, the eldest child. She carefully coaches Jacob in what to do in order to disguise himself as Esau for the blind Isaac and even cooks Isaac's favorite dish for him before Esau has time to come back with game to feed his father first.

Rebekah is willing to take all the blame for this deceit on herself in order that her precious boy will receive what she desires for him. And it results in her not even being able to see Jacob since he must go into exile.

Jochebed (Exodus 2:1-10; 6:20)

You may not be familiar with this name (as I wasn't), but this was Moses' birth-mother who not only saved his life when all the other Jewish boys were getting murdered, but also arranged it that a prestigious Egyptian woman, Pharaoh's daughter in this case, would find him. In addition, she saw to it that she was appointed as his nursemaid. So he had the best of two worlds growing up, access to the seat of power and a good Jewish education. And she had the advantage of being with her son during the process.

Naomi (Ruth 3)

Naomi is the epitome of the stage mother in the way she craftily maneuvers events so that Ruth ends up marrying the rich man Boaz. But in the process she actually puts Ruth in harm's way by convincing her to make overtures to him in the middle of the night. Fortunately, Boaz is a righteous man and does not take advantage of the situation, and of course God is directing the action behind the scenes the whole time.

Personally, I do not think much of Naomi with her moaning and groaning about her personal problems. And the fact that she seems to consider Ruth's child as her own (see Ruth 4:16-17) confirms the fact that Naomi appears to be living out through Ruth the life she feels was wrongfully taken from her by God.

Hannah (1 Samuel 1)

Hannah joins the group of barren women who only get pregnant through God's help. But in her case, she takes the selfless act of giving her boy back to God rather than keep him for herself. And she also goes one step further than Jochebed in seeing that Samuel is raised in an environment even closer to the real seat of power, God's temple.

Bathsheba (I Kings 1-2)

As David lies on his bed dying, Bathsheba is rightly concerned about the fate of her and her son Solomon. Despite David's promise that Solomon will inherit the throne, she has learned that another son, Adonijah, has proclaimed himself king instead. Right after she has told David of this development, Nathan barges in with the same news. David promptly has his officials anoint Solomon and have him parade through the city.

But the conspiracy doesn't end with David's death in that Adonijah then asks Bathsheba to relay his request to Solomon for the hand of Abishag, the woman who shared David's bed before he died. Bathsheba duly tells Solomon, who is rightly enraged at her request since that act would have symbolically meant that Adonijah was the rightful king after all. There are two ways of interpreting her motive in giving in to Adonijah's request: (1) she knew full well what Solomon's reaction would be and hoped it would result in Adonijah's death or banishment or (2) she was so naïve that she didn't realize what Adonijah's request meant .

Jezebel (I Kings 21)

This is a variation on the stage mother motif in that it is concerns a married couple in which the man, King Ahab, acts the part of the helpless boy who must be pushed into action by a woman. The clearest example is seen in the famous story in I Kings 21 in which Ahab is dejected because Naboth won't sell his vineyard to him. He acts sort of like Jonah pouting over his dead vine. Jezebel has to come along and put him in a better mood by reminding him that it is very easy to hire men to give false testimony which will put Naboth to death. And she does just that.

Mordecai (Book of Esther)

Here we go a little further afield with the stage mother theme in that it is a man, Mordecai, who first pushes his cousin Esther reluctantly into action when the Jewish people are threatened. When their requests are met favorably by the king, who is portrayed throughout as being even more clueless than King Ahab, both Ruth and Mordecai take charge and get the king to not only eliminate their enemy Haman but also to empower the Jews to fight back anywhere in the kingdom where they are threatened.

Their motives are quite clear – neutralize their personal enemy and anyone else who would take action against the Jewish people as a whole.

Conclusion

What can we say regarding this parade of those who engineered events to favor themselves and/or those to whom they were devoted or could manipulate? Of course it varies with the individual circumstances, but an appropriate closure is provided by G. Norman, who discusses the case of Rebekah: “Rebekah was a woman of strong will and ambition, devoted at first to her husband, but later transferring that devotion to her younger son, with disastrous results for the life of the family, though the sequel shows that in the overruling of God even this was converted to the furtherance of His purpose.”

And we could make the same statement regarding all of the narratives above. In each case, it was used in one way or another to bring about God's will.