SUFFERING IN II TIMOTHY

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

A. Suffering (1:8-14)

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

A'. Suffering (2:1-10)

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

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

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

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

II Timothy 1:8-14

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

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

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

II Timothy 2:1-10

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

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

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

II Timothy 4:16-18

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

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

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

II Timothy 3:11-12

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

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

LUKE 4:14-30

                             Figure I: The Literary Structure of Luke 3-4

A. John’s ministry (3:1-18)

B. Herod’s opposition (3:19-20)

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

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

B'. Satan’s opposition (4:1-15)

A'. Jesus’ ministry (4:16-30)

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

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

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

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

1. Jesus returned to Galilee (14a)

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

                3. and was praised for his teaching (15)

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

                            a. and stood up (16)

                                b. He unrolled the scroll (17)

                                        c. and read from Isaiah (18-19)

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

                            a'. and sat (20b)

                                        c'. and interpreted the prophecy (21)

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

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

                                a. They said (22b)

                                        b. He said (23a)

                                a'. You will say (23b)

                                        b'. He said (24)

                                                (1) Elijah example (25-26)

                                                (1') Elisha example (27)

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOMORROW, TOMORROW

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

Proverbs 27:1

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

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

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

Luke 12:16-21

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

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

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

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

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

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

James 4:13-14a

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

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

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

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

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

REFINING IN THE BIBLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Job 23:10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Peter 1:7

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

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

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

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

 

GIDEON: MAN OF MANY NAMES

 

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

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

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

Gideon

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

Jerubbaal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerubbosheth

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

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

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

NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS FROM THE BIBLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OFF WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW

 This title saying is a minor variation on the common expression “Out with the old; in with the new” used at New Year to indicate some sort of fresh start, but is based on the metaphorical image of changing or donning clothing. This same metaphor, it turns out, is pervasive throughout the Bible, both Old and New Testament. So below is a quick overview of just some of the places in which it is utilized to convey a wide variety of concepts.

Alden says, “Of the many roots that designate clothing in BH [i.e. the Hebrew Bible], lbs is by far the most common with over 150 occurrences...The vb. often carries metaphorical uses in the Poetical books.” Thus, he cites passages such as Psalm 93:1; Ps. 104; and Job 40:10 in which God Himself is said to be clothed in majesty, splendor and light. Psalms 59:17 speaks of God putting on a warrior's uniform in words which are actually echoed later for believers themselves in the NT (See I Thessalonians 5:8). And even in the OT, the righteous are said to be clothed with God's blessings (Isaiah 61:10).

Alden adds that in Judges 6:34; I Chronicles 12:18; and II Chronicles 24:20 certain chosen people were clothed with the Spirit's power. As the footnote in the NRSV states, the last of the above references reads in the Hebrew “Then the spirit of God clothed itself with [i.e., 'took possession of'] Zechariah...”

“The imagery of garments and clothing is of the major importance in the Bible. Its significance can be physical, economic, social, moral or spiritual. The imagery of investing and divesting a person of clothing is usually symbolic of larger issues. The function of clothing, moreover, is multiple: clothing can protect, conceal, display or represent a person's current state and can be symbolic of moral or spiritual qualities. (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

And another anonymous article in DBI similarly states: “The actions of putting clothing on and putting it off constitutes another major motif [in the Bible]. The specific meaning of investing a person with a garment depends on what kind of clothing is in view...By an easy progression, the literal investing and divesting of garments becomes overtly metaphorical of spiritual states.” Examples cited include Job 29:14; Isaiah 52:1, 59:17; Romans 13:12; I Corinthians 15:53; Ephesians 4:22; and Colossians 3:9-10. 

Keener states, “The language of 'putting on' or 'clothing oneself'' (I Peter 5:5) contrasts with what is 'put off' in 2:1 and reflects an ancient idiom. One person playing the role of another could be said, figuratively, to don the other; likewise one could put off the soldier and put on (i.e., act as) the sophist. Scripture had already long offered a figurative use of this image (Isa. 52:1; 61:10; Zech. 3:3-4); 'clothing oneself' with a quality was a Semitic idiom. (The idiom might be especially familiar from being clothed with the divine Spirit in the Septuagint) [i.e. Judges 6:34; I Chronicles 12:18; II Chronicles 24:20].”

As to the basic meaning of the original words employed in the Bible for this process, Alden says, “The word beged is...a metaphor for the fullness and joy of God's salvation. The phrase 'garments (beged) of salvation' speaks of the fullness of God's deliverance and blessing (Isa 61:10). The phrase 'garments (beged) of splendor' amplifies the royal and holy status of God's people (52:1).”

In the Greek Septuagint version of the OT, “endyo [or enduo] for the Heb. labas is used...fig[uratively] in Job 29:14 (righteousness), Isa. 52:1 (strength), Ps. 132:16 (salvation), 1 Mac. 14:9 (glory), Job 8:22 (shame), Ezek. 7:27 (despair).” (Weigelt)

The most common Greek verb in the NT for “clothe” is enduo (in passages such as Romans 13:12,14; I Corinthians 15:15-54; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:21, 6:11,14; Colossians 3:10,12; and I Thessalonians 5:8. However, other synonyms such as periballo (John 19:2), and apekduo (Colossians 3:9) are also employed.

Some of the OT expressions using the verb “clothe” include:

    “I put on righteousness”(Job 29:14)

    “Put on (thy) strength” (Isaiah 51:9; 52:1)

    “Put on righteousness and vengeance” (Isaiah 59:17)

And in the NT, we read the following words addressed to believers:

    “Put on the armor of light and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 13:12-14)

    “The corruptible will put on the incorruptible.” (I Corinthians 15:53-54)

    “Put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)

    “Put on the new (man).” (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10)

    “Put on the whole armor of God.” (Ephesians 6:11)

Weigelt states: “The expression 'put on Christ' appears in Galatians 3:27 and Romans 13:14 where it is accomplished by both baptism and faith. Paul is concerned with a new relationship of the personality with Christ. For him putting on Christ means the beginning of sharing Christ's nature. He writes also of the putting on of the new man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). For Paul the new man is identical with Christ.”

Esser also comments on Ephesians 4:24 by saying: “It is the nature of this new man to see himself totally and unconditionally in the light of God's act of creation in Christ, as his workmanship (Eph. 2:10). The new man can be 'put on' as a new self, who no longer has anything to do with the old. Where the old man was characterized by acts which destroy fellowship with God and with other men, the new is marked by a new knowledge, emanating from the will of God.”

The RSV of II Corinthians 5:1-4a reads: “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling so that by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.”

Knox comments on this passage: “This building is the 'spiritual body' of I Cor. 15:44-50. Paul hopes that the Lord will come and that he will receive his new body before he has had to put off the old one.”

Weigelt weighs three possible ways to understand Paul's words here. His conclusion is that “Paul was combating a Gnostic group in Corinth. The Gnostics longed to be freed of the covering of the body. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Paul is not stressing being unclothed, but being further clothed. So Paul is contrasting the ideal of the Gnostics of not being clothed with the being further clothed with the new body.”

“I Pet 5:5 contains the metaphor of putting on clothing: 'Clothe yourself, all of you, with humility...' (cf. Jn. 13:4).” (Esser)

“The woman of Rev. 12 (probably to be identified with the Zion of Isa. 66:7ff), who gives birth to the child destined to rule all nations, is portrayed as 'clothed with the sun' (Rev. 12:1).” (Hagner)

The above merely scratches the surface of all the metaphorical references to being clothed that are found in the Bible.

PAUL, THE BIBLE'S LAST ACTION HERO

That is the eye-catching title of a brief article by Drew Billings in the Winter 2025 issue of BAR magazine. Although I enjoy reading that magazine for reports of archaeological finds and great illustrations, I must admit that they often pad each issue with one or more article from a liberal university professor taking potshots at those who are so ignorant that they still take the biblical accounts at their face value.

Thus, the gist of this particular article is that Luke (or whoever really wrote the book of Acts) practically deified the figure of Paul by turning him into an invulnerable superman who is unfazed by any sort of physical abuse. Billings points out that this one-sided characterization is at odds with Paul's first-hand accounts in his letters where he often boasts of his weakness.

Next Billings elaborates on this superhuman apostle being able to perform “signs and wonders” in Acts. But if you look at the facts a little more closely, you will find out that of the eight times that particular phrase or similar formulations are mentioned, only one applies to Paul. And that one (Acts 14:3) (1) includes Barnabas as well as Paul and (2) does not give them the primary credit for these miracles since it describes the Lord “granting signs and wonders through them.” This is hardly a description of Supermen.

We get the same picture in Paul's letters, which actually contain three mentions of “signs (and wonders)” in which he was involved. They are found in Romans 15:19; I Corinthians 1:22; and II Corinthians 12:12. And in I Cor. 1:22 Paul actually criticizes those among the Jews who demand signs.

Nevertheless, Billings sticks to his unproven thesis that “the Book of Acts represents an ambitious attempt at constructing a literary monument of apostolic memorialization whereby Paul is recast [i.e. portrayed in a way not consistent with reality] as a courageous hero who prevails against hostile forces in the face of life-threatening dangers...” He also states, “After all, the presentation of him as an embodied vessel of divine charisma recasts Paul's body as invulnerable to the very types of injury and pain to which he so frequently refers in his own letters...”

My own impression of Billings' very short essay is that he himself is the one who is recasting what the Book of Acts says concerning Paul by carefully selecting only those incidents which fit his preconceived notions. For example, Paul in his letters says nothing regarding his embarrassing part in the stoning of Stephen, but it is described in Acts. And in Acts 14:5-6, Paul and Barnabas are said to flee for their lives. “Then there are the points brought out by Fitzmyer: “Luke cannot bring himself to depict Paul as one of the apostles” and “Paul did not want to become a Christian or a missionary, but Christ has made him such. It was not a decision of a human being, but an act of God.”

As one example, take the incident related in Acts 15 soon after Paul's conversion. He finds himself trapped in the walled city of Damascus with enemies out to get him. Does he simply yank the city gates out of the ground and walk out carrying them on his back as the superhero Samson did in Judges 16? No, instead he has to be ignominiously lowered over the wall in a basket by others. Hardly a Samson!

Another possibility to take into account concerning the differences between Acts and Paul's letters is that many scholars feel, and with good reason, Luke served during Paul's lifetime as his personal physician who often traveled with him to help take care of Paul's many physical maladies, including eye troubles and malaria as well as the abuse his body had suffered through mistreatment by others. And in that confidential capacity, Luke was really not free to openly divulge to the world the great extent of Paul's injuries and physical suffering. Aside from that conjecture, here is what more knowledgeable commentators than myself have to say on the general subject.

Neil: “It has often been said by writers about the book of Acts that Luke made Paul his hero...Clearly, it is not, as might at one time been thought, the uncritical hero-worship of a simple medical missionary; not only does Luke paint his picture of Paul with 'warts and all', but...our author is a man of independent judgment with a theological point of his own...he honored him because he had brought the message of salvation from Jerusalem to Rome. This was why Luke made Paul his hero, if we like to put it that way.”

Bruce is a little more sympathetic with Billings' view when he states: “For Paul no doubt is Luke's hero. What an ineffaceable picture he gives us of the apostle! And in giving us this picture, what a contribution he has made to the record of Christian expansion!” It is this latter theme that most commentators feel constitutes the primary reason for Luke writing Acts, certainly not to deify the person of Paul. And Bruce represents a sizable number of other scholars who feel that “On the theological side, the dominating theme of Acts is the activity of the Holy Spirit.”

Similarly, John Stott subtitles his commentary on Acts “The Spirit, the Church, and the World” as well as describing that book as a “political apology” stressing three major points:

        1. Roman officials were friendly to Christianity;

        2. There was no reason for the Roman State to convict them of any crimes; and

        3. Christianity was not a forbidden new religion since it was based on Judaism.

Note that not one of those three themes includes any attempt to exalt the portrait of Paul from that of God's obedient servant to the status of a superhero.

Acts 14:19-20

One of the events Billings cites to show the supposed total invulnerability of Paul to pain is described in Acts 14 where he is stoned by a hostile crowd and left for dead. Verse 20 reads: “But when the disciples surrounded him, he got up and went into the city.” C.R. Matthews cautiously labels this event as “perhaps a miraculous recovery.” Ogilvie attributes it to the concerted prayers of the disciples who were said to have surrounded him.” Assuming this latter is closer to the true events in the episode, we might better ascribe superhuman properties to those praying disciples rather than to the unconscious Paul who certainly did not exhibit his total physical mastery over his abuse.

Trenchard has this to say: “He [Paul] was not dead, as many supposed, but was miraculously helped to overcome utter prostration and dangerous wounds so as to set out on his journey to Derbe the next day.”

Acts 28:1-6

The other “miraculous” event Billings harps on in his article is Paul's utter immunity to a deadly snake bite while on Malta. But for a closer account of a superhuman Christian pitted against snakes while on an island, you would be much better served by considering the legend of St. Patrick casting out all the serpents in Ireland. By contrast, Paul in Acts 28 is seen in a totally passive role carrying out the duties of a menial servant by rounding up wood for the fire. He does not cast out even one serpent, but just shakes it out on the ground to slither away harmlessly. However, after Paul does not swell up and die as the superstitious inhabitants of the island supposed he would, they switch from considering him a murderer getting his just punishment to worshiping him as a god. That certainly sounds like Billings' definition of a super hero, but is it really?

Perhaps the most logical explanation of the incident was suggested by Ramsay years ago. It involves a snake of the genus Coronella austriaca, which “is known to be rather irritable, and to fix its small teeth so firmly into the human skin as to hang on and need a little force to pull it off, though the teeth are too short to do anay real injury to the skin.”

Bruce's cautious comment regarding this possible explanation is that “we must leave the accurate identification of the reptile to the few scholars who combine expert knowledge of this branch of natural history with expert knowledge of the Greek terms used here by Luke.”

And Fitzmyer adds: “Echidna was the same term used for many forms of snakes thought to be poisonous...The superstitious natives think that Paul has fallen under the scrutiny of this goddess [i.e. Dike, 'Justice'].”

Conclusion

If you are really interested in pursuing this issue of Acts vs. Paul's letters in more detail, I would suggest purchasing A Harmony of the Life of St. Paul by Frank Goodwin, which represents one attempt to place these two sources side-by-side so you can note for yourself where the two complement and reinforce one another and where they might disagree in relative emphases.

Another valuable resource in that regard is found in pages 129-141in the much more liberal and critical scholar Joseph Fitzmyer's important commentary on Acts. He also has no trouble at all dovetailing the details of Paul's life as portrayed in Acts together with those gleaned from Paul's letters.

RUTH 3:10-11

                  House of Bread--left half (collage in bread mold, 2000)

I must admit that for many years I misunderstood this passage and certainly missed some of the echoes of it found elsewhere in the Bible.

Ruth 3:10a

When Boaz realizes that Ruth is the woman is lying at his feet, he says, “May you be blessed by the LORD.” This is quite similar to the comment made to Mary years later: “Blessed are you among women.” (Luke 1:42)

Ruth 3:10b

The next part of this verse confused me the most. On the surface it appeared that Boaz was very flattered that Ruth had chosen him when she could have had her pick of the many younger men around her. But if that was the proper interpretation of his words, then what was the earlier favor he was talking about? The fact that she had chosen his particular field in which to pick grain? It didn't seem to quite make sense. So I read a variety of English translations to see if they could help.

The NRSV reads: “This last instance of your loyalty is better than the first.” In place of “instance,” NEB substitutes “proof,” while JB, RSV and NIV translate “instance of your loyalty” as “act of kindness.”

Ruth 3:10c

And capping it all off is the final mention of all the young men she could have had instead. Some translations tie 10b with 10c together strongly through the use of paraphrase. Thus we read:

“What a splendid expression of love! And when you could have had your pick of any of the young men around.” (The Message)

“You are showing even greater family loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law.” (TEV)

“You have made your latter hesed ['loving-kindness'] better than the former in not going after the younger men.” (AB)

“You are being even kinder to Naomi now than before. Naturally you'd prefer a younger man, even though poor. But you have put aside your personal desires [so that you can give Naomi an heir by marrying me].” (Living Bible)

Note that not one of these versions supports my earlier supposition that Boaz is flattered Ruth has chosen an older man such as himself among all the other men she could have had. So I turned next to commentators, but they also seemed to confirm that I was way off- base in my interpretation or they didn't bother to explain what Boaz' words meant at all. For example, The Jerusalem Bible note to this verse reads: “This act of filial piety, of 'kindness', on Ruth's part consists in wishing to provide a legal descendant for Elimelech...”

By this time, I was ready to admit that the majority opinion must be correct and I was totally mistaken. However, my faith in my first interpretation was somewhat vindicated by the following comments:

J. Grey echoes the above interpretations but still states: “In addition, Boaz, probably no longer young, may have been personally flattered by Ruth's trust.”

And Hubbard says, “Far from being offended by her forwardness, he [i.e. Boaz] seemed both flattered and inwardly pleased by it.”

Ruth 3:11

Here we read that Boaz next tells Ruth (a) not to fear, (b) he will do as she requests, and (c) “all the townsmen know you are a woman of worth [or a virtuous woman].” We see here several echoes tying this incident with other stories in the Bible. For one thing, the angel Gabriel says the same thing (i.e. “fear not”) when telling Mary that she will have a Son (see Luke 1:30). And in that same NT passage, Mary submits to God's will by calling herself “the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:37) in the same manner that Ruth calls herself the “maidservant” of Boaz in Ruth 3:9.

There is even the interesting fact that in the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Ruth comes directly after Proverbs 31:10-31, a passage which begins with a description of the “virtuous / noble woman” just as Ruth is described with the same Hebrew word in 3:11.

And then turning to the last verse in the poem in Proverbs, we read “Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her words praise her in the gates.” We again see echoes this verse in the Book of Ruth. Namely, before Boaz dismisses Ruth, he gives her a large amount of grain to take home to Naomi, grain for which she had been toiling in the fields earlier. And lastly, the city gates are the very scene of action for the final chapter of Ruth where Boaz transacts the marriage plans in the presence of the elders of the town, the very same group of men whom Boaz declares in Ruth 3:11 know her to be a virtuous woman.

 

WISDOM IN THE NATIVITY STORY

 

 

Jesus with the Doctors: After Dore' (paper collage, 2011)

Twice in my life I have been asked by very intelligent and educated friends of mine how in the world someone like myself who appears to have the same attributes as they have could possibly believe in the Bible. This brings up three terms applied to people which are often mixed up with one another in various combinations: intelligence, education, and belief. For example, in the same church I attended for years there were loyal attenders who were PhD scientists, those who had never attended college but were wise, and others who were reasonably intelligent yet firmly believed that we lived on a flat earth. And in my own immediate family while growing up, I had (a) a father who was intelligent and wise and became an elder in his church but never had the advantage of a higher education; (b) a mother who was intelligent and had faith but never attended college and was a bit scatter-brained at times; and (c) a brother who was very intelligent but never completed junior college nor attended church on his own volition once he had left home.

In my workplace, I have also encountered people with every possible combination and permutation of the three attributes of intelligence, education, and belief. We see the very same thing in the Nativity story as related by the four Gospel writers. Those coming to honor the new-born King included both shepherds and magi. There couldn't be a greater difference between two such groups of people although both of them demonstrated a great deal of faith. The Magi (popularly called Wise Men) were pagans who had a very high position in their society and might be called the scientists of their day due to their vast knowledge regarding the movements of the heavenly bodies. By contrast, the Jewish shepherds were ignorant peasants who had such a bad reputation in Israel that their testimony was not even accepted in a court of law. The clear implication of the Gospel narratives is that Jesus came to save all mankind, not just one particular ethnic group or those with a certain level of intelligence or education.

In fact, Paul for one appears to feel that God often had a reason for singling out those not generally considered wise by others:

“Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were influential, not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things...to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God...” (I Corinthians 1:26-30; NIV)

Grosheide explains this passage: “The foolishness of God is that work of God which the world considers foolish and feeble, namely the death of Christ, is salvation for believers. It saves whereas the world cannot save. That is why the foolishness of God is wiser than man.These words denote man in all his knowledge and power.”

Now consider for a moment the two stories bracketing Jesus' birth and early youth before the start of His ministry. First is the testimony of the wise men (magi), which we read about in Matthew 2:1-12. France defines these men as follows: “Magos, originally the title of a Persian priestly caste who played an important role in advising the king, was applied more widely to learned men and priests who specialized in astrology and the interpretation of dreams, and in some cases magical arts.”

But then, in Luke 2:39 we are given a summary statement regarding Jesus progress as a boy: “And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was up on him. The next thing Luke tells us about is Jesus' journey to Jerusalem when he was twelve years old. There we see him as a young boy discussing theological matters in the temple with another group of wise men, this time the noted teachers of that time. They are totally amazed at his intellectual maturity, and Luke caps off the story with a similar summary statement in verse 52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.”

So whatever your current status in the eyes of the world or your inborn abilities are, the lesson at Christmas time is that God loves you for neither of these, and all are welcome to exercise the wisdom to follow His will as revealed in Jesus Christ, His Son.

RUTH AND THE GOSPELS

 I thought that an interesting exercise might by to look for possible correspondences between these widely separated books in the Bible. Here are a few such parallels gleaned from the scholarly literature, although I am sure there are probably additional examples that have been mentioned before.

Ruth 1:1

Hubbbard notes that in the Bible famines were “often believed to be God's judgment [as in Mark 13:8]...though in this case the author was silent about the cause.” And, in fact, the end result of this particular famine was the birth of the Savior of the world.

Ruth 1:8

Ruth tells her daughters-in-law in this verse, “May the LORD deal mercifully toward you” just as Luke 1:72 talks about His “mercy promised to our ancestors.” Pao and Schnabel relate these two statements to one another.

Ruth 1:15-16

Campbell compares the difficult choice Ruth has to make in these verses to that required of Jesus' disciples (see Matthew 10:37-39; 19:29; Mark 10:29; Luke 14:26,33).

Ruth 2

Understanding the incident of Jesus and His disciples plucking grain to eat on the Sabbath depends partially on knowing about the law allowing the poor to glean from harvested fields (Lev. 19:9-1). This is also the key background needed to be able to make sense out of the events in the second chapter of Ruth.

Ruth 2:4

“The second part of the prayer [in 2 Thessalonians 3:16] involves a typical Jewish greeting: 'The Lord be with you' (Judg . 6:12; Ruth 2:4; Luke 1:28).” (Weima)

Ruth 2:12

Boaz says to Ruth in this verse, “May the LORD reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge.” Pao and Schnabel add, “Rabbinic texts use the image of finding refuge under wings for proselytes who come under the wings of the Shekinah [i.e. the glory of God's presence].”

Blomberg relates this to a NT passage by saying, “The imagery of [Matt.] 23:37, in which Jesus longs to have gathered Jerusalem's children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, echoes the imagery of, for example, Deut. 32:11; Ps. 36:7; Ruth 2:12; Isa. 31:5...”

Ruth 2:14

Hubbard concludes that the drink in question “was either a refreshing sour drink or a vinegar-based sauce into which bread was customarily dipped.”

Discussing the meaning of the Hebrew term for the drink, Campbell says, “It is clear that homes is liquid or semi-liquid, and that it tastes good...In Ps. 69:22, however, it designates a drink a thirsty man would not want; the Gospel accounts of drink offered to Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:36; Matt 27:48...; and John 19:29-30) make take their rise from this psalm, but they manifest a discrepancy as to Jesus' attitude toward the offer. It is enough to assume that it was a refreshing sour drink.”

“Jesus' words to his disciples in [John] 6:12, 'Gather the leftover pieces, so that nothing may perish' echo those of the narrative in Ruth 2:4, 'She ate all she wanted and had some left over.' It was customary at Jewish meals to collect what was left over.” (Kostenerger)

Ruth 3

Blomberg: “More interesting than the men are the women in Jesus' genealogy [as related by Matthew in the first chapter of his Gospel account]. Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba ('Uriah's wife' [1:6]) were Gentiles, but also women who were under suspicion, rightly or wrongly, of illicit sexual relations (see, respectively, Gen. 38; Josh. 2; Ruth 3; 2 Sam. 11). Mary was not a Gentile, but she did experience the stigma of a conception out of wedlock...”

Ruth 3:9

Leith notes, “The reference to God's protective wings...[in Ruth 2:12, see above] is echoed in 3.9 when Ruth asks Boaz to 'spread' his cloak (lit. 'wing') over her.”

Ruth 3:10

“The point was that Ruth acted neither from passion nor greed. Rather, sacrificially setting aside personal preferences, she chose a marriage of benefit to her family. She reckoned her own happiness as secondary to provision of an heir for her late husband and Naomi. Such a model of selfless concern for the needs of others recalls...[Jesus'] teaching that the 'greatest' in the kingdom is everybody's servant (Matt. 23:11; Luke 22:24-27; cf. John 13:12-17).” (Hubbard) In that regard, note the number of times in Ruth 2-3 various Hebrew words are employed for the word “servant, slave, bondservant, etc.”

Ruth 3:13

Seifrid says that the opening phrase of Romans 14:11 “pointedly appropriates the oath 'As the LORD (Yahweh) lives' (e.g., Judg. 8:19; Ruth 3:13; 1 Sam. 14:39; Jer. 4:2). In most contexts the Lord's self-binding oath introduces a warning of coming judgment, whereas in Isa. 49:18 it introduces the promise of Zion's salvation.” In the case of Ruth 3:13, both implications may actually be in mind.

Ruth 4:1

The Anchor Bible calls the relative-redeemer in this verse “so-and-so.” Campbell explains, “The Hebrew is peloni almoni, two rhyming nouns of similar but not identical formation without intervening conjunction ['and'].., to be found only in I Sam 21:3, II Kings 6:8, and here, along with the contracted form palmoni in Dan 8:13. The meaning has been determined partly from the contexts of these biblical passages, but more from the way certain versions (some LXX manuscripts: hodeina, 'such a one,' - cf. Matt 26:18...); from the persistence in the Talmud of the first element..; and from the Syriac and Arabic cognate...The effect is to indicate one who (for whatever reason) will not or cannot be named.”

Ruth 4:1-12

“In Matt 22, some Sadduces try to trick Jesus by asking him a hypothetical question relating to the levirate law of Deuteronomy 25:5. And, as Blomberg points out, “The most famous application of the levirate laws in later OT literature appears in the wonderful short story of Ruth. Boaz must make sure that a nearer kinsman of Ruth does not want to marry her, so that he can have the privilege (Ruth 4:1-12).”

This same NT narrative is found in parallel passages Matthew 22:23-33 and Mark 12:18-27.

Ruth 4:17

Campbell: “They [i.e. the townswomen] gave him the name Obed.” In this regard, Campbell refers to the example of “Luke 1:59, where Elizabeth's neighbors and kin appear to be involved with the proposal to name her child [i.e. John the Baptist] Zechariah, after his father, only to be deterred first by Elizabeth and then by Zechariah himself.”

Ruth 4:18-22

But perhaps the most interesting passage in Ruth for both Jews and Christians consists of these final words, which come as somewhat of a surprise for those who have never read the book of Ruth before. In these verses is revealed the fact that this simple pastoral tale is, in fact, extremely important for later generations in that King David was actually born from this union of Ruth and Boaz. Both Matthew 1:1-6 and Luke 3:25-38 contain this fact, but whereas Luke's genealogy only mentions Boaz, that of Matthew pointedly includes Ruth herself in the enumeration. And the slight differences in these two lists indicate that there may be, in fact, two different ways of tracing a direct lineage from Abraham to Jesus' (step-)father Joseph.”

Campbell discusses the vexing question of whether the offspring of Ruth and Boaz would properly be reckoned to either Boaz or to Ruth's deceased first husband. He answers: “Apparently to both” and notes “that levirate marriages always resulted in a sort of dual paternity. Something of the same conclusion is to be drawn from Genesis 38, where the twins born to Tamar are implicitly to be reckoned to her first husband Er, but in all the Judah genealogies, from Gen 46:12 to Matt 1:3, Perez and Zerah are reckoned to Judah.”

DANIEL 5 REVISITED

 

 The Handwriting on the Wall (collage and acrylics, 2004)

This is a short update to a previously post on this subject. But first, here is a quick rehash of what I said earlier:

This phrase from the Bible is one of many that has entered into our general vocabulary. It usually refers to something that prophesies a coming doom. It appears in expected places such as the lyrics to Christian songs or the title of a study on Daniel by David Jeremiah. But it can also be found in gansta rap lyrics and, my favorite, the final lines in Paul Simon's The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls and whispered in the sounds of silence.”

We are probably all familiar with the story in which King Belshazzar is having a large feast in his palace, using the stolen goblets from the Jerusalem Temple to drink from. At one point in the festivities, he sees a disembodied hand writing on the wall near a lamp. The main concern of the story from that point on is the proper interpretation of the writing.

This palace has been excavated. The walls are covered with white gypsum, which would have made the writing easy to read. Apparently, the king was the only one who actually witnessed the act of writing itself. Levine points to a somewhat similar earlier situation when King Nebuchadnezzar was the first one to notice a fourth “man” in the fiery furnace with the three young Jewish men.

It would make sense that Belshazzar was the first one to see the writing since, as E.J. Young notes, “It was the custom at oriental feasts for the king to sit on a raised platform, apart from the guests (see v. 1, 'in front of the thousand'). Thus, he probably was facing in a different direction than the others.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery sees a similarity with two other occasions in which “the finger of God” wrote something: God writing the ten commandments on stone (Exodus 31:18) and Jesus driving out demons by 'the finger of God” (Luke 11:20). “In each case, finger imagery conveys the power and immediacy of God's action.” Tremper Longman adds Exodus 8:19 and Psalm 8:3 to this list of biblical passages.

As in previous stories in this book, the king calls in all his non-Jewish magicians, diviners, etc. But they are unable to understand the meaning of the words. A somewhat related story appears in Genesis 41:8. His promise of the third highest rank in the land if they can solve the puzzle makes sense in light of the fact that Nabonidus was actually the king and Belshazzar filling in for him in his absence. In any case, the promise is an empty one, as Daniel knows, since Belshazzar will soon be deposed.

The first major question involves the inability of the magicians to understand the writing. Longman feels it may imply “that it was written in some sort of code, because it had been written in Aramaic, the common language of the day. Their inability cannot be the result of a simple inability to read the script, if it were written out in a normal manner. The text ultimately does not let us know.” But that does not stop scholars from speculating anyway:

Goldingay suggests that possibly the letters were written in a peculiar type of cuneiform or that the weights involved were actually abbreviated (as we might do with kg. or lb.). Most other commentators identify the difficulty in the fact that Aramaic was written in scripta continua (without a break between words) and without vowel indications, as Hebrew was also written.

Then again, the problem may not have been in the reading of the words, but in their meaning. Hartman and DiLella say, “For the storyteller, the writing was apparently in regular Aramaic script, giving ordinary Aramaic words, but the message conveyed by the words was beyond the understanding of the pagan wise men; cf. the mysterious name of Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which the prophet inscribed 'in ordinary writing', but of which no one could grasp the significance until the prophet explained the meaning (Isa 8:1-4).”

In verses 24-28 we come to the proper interpretation of the terse message, as given by Daniel. Interpretation: mina (large weight related to “count”), shekel (1/60 of a mina, related to “weight”), and pares (½ parsin, interpreted as “divide”). This is like some other OT prophecies which depend on taking an ordinary object or word and through wordplay deriving a spiritual message (for example, see Amos 7:7-9; 8:1-3).

Chisholm summarizes it best: “At the surface level, the words meant literally 'a mina, a mina, a sheckel, and half-shekels.' These units of measure suggested an image of monetary weights being placed on a scale. As such, each word carried a double meaning. The term mene' sounded like the verb menah, meaning 'to number.' God had numbered the days of Belshazzar's reign, and the king's time was up (v. 26). The word teqel sounds like the verb tequal, meaning 'to weigh.' Belshazzar had been weighed on God's scales and found wanting (v. 27). The term upsarin (combining the conjunction 'and' and the plural of peres, 'half-shekel) sounded like the verb peras, 'to break in two.' Belshazzar's kingdom had been broken and would be handed over to the Medes and Persians (v. 28).”

In addition, Goldingay notes that menah can have the meaning of 'to appoint' or 'to destine.' And E.J. Young says, “We have a play upon words in which the basic idea of division in liked with the name of the conqueror [peres and Persia].”

Finally, various scholars have fancifully suggested that each of the weights stood for a subsequent ruler of Babylon, but they can't seem to agree on which kings those were or even how many kings were in mind. Similarly, The Jerusalem Bible suggests that perhaps the sequence of terms are “allusions to the decreasing influence of the three successive empires (Babylonians, 'Medes,' and Persians).”

There is some historical verification of the ending to the story in that the historian Herodotus says Babylon was captured at nighttime while its leaders were enjoying a feast. And one last detail: The time of this event that Herodotus records happens to coincide with the annual rising of the constellation Libra, which is appropriate in its image of a scale for weighing. “This recalls the picture of God as the just judge who ably manages the affairs of the world, and who not only measures motives and actions but evaluates and controls each person's destiny.” (DBI)

Updates

To start with, I would like to refer the reader to an earlier post titled “Balaam: Numbers 22-24.” In it I wrote:

“Because of doubts concerning the historicity of the episode with the talking donkey, there has even been speculation that the prophet himself was a fictional character. After all, here we have a prophet who isn't even Jewish but is still able to converse with God and even has a considerable reputation outside his own land.

So it was quite exciting when a totally unique form of archeological evidence was uncovered. The information below comes from David L. Stubbs' commentary on Numbers and from Biblical Archaeology Today, xi(5), p. 34.

Nothing else was known concerning Balaam except the details given in Numbers 22-24 and a few other biblical passages. Then in 1967, some Dutch archeologists were excavating at Deir 'Alla, identified with the biblical Succoth in northern Israel where Jacob built a booth for his cattle. They found pieces of several plaster panels containing writing in a red pigment. It appeared that these panels were attached to a column inside a non-Israelite Iron Age II temple. After many years, they pieced the writing together and reconstructed the Aramaic inscription to read “Book of Balaam, son of Beor, the man who was a seer of the gods.” The rest of the writing confirmed the existence of a pagan prophet named Balaam who was revered by Canaanites hundreds of years later.

The reconstructed text of the first panel describes Balaam receiving a night vision (see Numbers 22:8,20) in which he learns that the heavenly council is planning to remove all the light from the sun. In the second panel, which is in poorer condition than the first, it appears that Balaam may possibly be counseling the people to resort to child sacrifice to avert the disaster. If so, it indicates that Balaam was not just a prophet, but also an exorcist of sorts. This would fit well with the multiple roles that Balaam is expected to play in Numbers 22-24 as someone who not only can discern God's will, but also one who can cast effective spells against an enemy.

As to the age of this wall, the strata covering these panels and earlier levels had large cracks indicating destruction by a large earthquake. One such earthquake is prominently mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:4-5 dating to about 750 BC. Other indications give the range of dates from 900-600 BC.”

So here we have an interesting literal example of the words of the prophet being written on a wall.

The second update also comes from the pages of BAR, this time in a letter to the editor by D. Freund followed by a response from the editor. Freund related the fact that his father was auditing a class at UCLA (my own alma mater) in which the mysterious words “mene, mene, tekel, and parsin” were also explained by his professor as being derived from the value of certain Persian coins circulating at the time. However, instead of these relating to future kings, the professor felt that they referred to two past and one present kings of Persia.

According to this interpretation (similar but not identical to that proposed back in 1944), in the words of Freund, “The wall inscription may well have been a graffito of three coins: a mina (worth many shekels) with the head of Belshazzar's grandfather, suggesting he was a great king; a shekel coin with the head of his father; a lesser but still great man; and a farthing coined with the head of Belshazzar himself, suggesting that he was all but worthless in comparison to his forebears. The meaning of that graffito was of course clear to anyone who saw it scrawled on the palace wall, but who would dare reveal its meaning to the king? Only Daniel had the courage to suggest to the king that he was a failure, and that his kingdom would soon fall.”

The editor of BAR called this particular theory “intriguing, there is, however, no way to know how Daniel read (i.e. vocalized) the inscription and how exactly, in his mind, the pun worked.” My read on this professor's theory is even more skeptical. For one thing, in the typical fashion of liberal Bible scholars, they are willing to take bits and pieces of the biblical narratives as accurate when it pleases them to do so but systematically strip them of all supernatural (and thus impossible) elements.

Thus, the related detail of the king seeing the words actually being written is purposely ignored as well as Daniel's divine revelation that Belshazzar was about to lose his kingdom to the Persians, which did happen at that time. Secondly, if all the king saw was some graffiti scribbled on the wall of his palace, would he really have begun to tremble all over with fear and be so concerned on what the words meant that he consulted all his wise men for the interpretation? Instead he would be outraged that anyone had the nerve to deface his palace and go to great lengths to have his wise men find out who it was. Thirdly, why did his wise men supposedly know exactly what the words meant? If it was that obvious, why couldn't Belshazzar figure it out himself? And if the meaning wasn't that obvious, why didn't one of the wise men simply put himself in good stead with the new king by making up an interpretation that was flattering to him?

Then there is the unlikelihood of not one of the king's numerous servants and courtiers at some point in the process of preparing this grand banquet noticing this obvious scribbling (whatever its meaning) defacing the room without quickly whitewashing it out before the king had a chance to see it.

But the most obvious problem with this scenario is the historical fact that before Babylon was conquered by the Persians, there was no coinage at all in that country. All hunks of metal were simply valued by their weight, as noted in the mention of scales in Daniel's interpretation . The introduction of even crude coins did not take place until about 100 years after that time. I personally have a small Persian silver coin from 200 years after Babylon fell. Even it is so crudely made that you can barely distinguish the picture of a person on it.

In conclusion, it is far easier and more consistent to simply take the account at its face value.